Ah, I was hoping to see a pseudo-Pascal's Mugging* argument constructed for voting. Now I can ask people who bring it up in response to any topic, 'do you vote for consequentialist reasons?'

* I say pseudo because people go around claiming that any argument involving small probabilities of large benefits or harms is a "Pascal's mugging" even though this is not what either Bostrom or Yudkowsky meant when they wrote on it; yet no one ever seems to realize this, which mystifies me a little - the LW post and PDF are both online, just a Google away!