Non-exclusive ways to become influential in how society is organized.

• Get rich
• Become a "pillar of the community" (Active member in some quasi-charity)
• Special Interest Litigation
• Become a political activist

These acts can be mutually supporting. But some of them are more available than others to particular people. And the last choice I listed is heavily committed to trying to influence voting behaviors. Groups like the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association are very powerful - and that power would vanish or massively decrease if all their members committed to not voting.

Voting suffers from substantial tragedy-of-the-commons issues. That doesn't mean it is pointless.

Konkvistador, you are on record as being skeptical of the idea of consent of the governed because you think the concept is too ambiguous to implement. I readily acknowledge that arguments for voting rely on consent of the governed / government responsive to the people being coherent/implementable concepts.

I just wonder whether this discussion is more than disguised disagreement about the underlying concepts. In short, if counterfactual-Konkvistador accepted the idea of consent of the governed, would counter-K still be as hostile as you to the idea of voting?

If not, I respectfully suggest we discuss our actual disagreement rather than talking past each other on this proxy issue.