> After all, in a normal decade the majority political party changes at least once Ya, but that's because the majority of who votes changes over time, or chang

> After all, in a normal decade the majority political party changes at least once Ya, but that's because the majority of who votes changes over time, or changes who they vote for over time. That means for any given elections, if you don't vote, you're voting for whoever the majority of voters will vote for. This is still a clear choice in some sense. Just imagine a scenario, I'm going to order pizza and ask you what toppings you want, you say: "I'll have whatever you'll have." This is you casting your support for my choice of toppings, even though you do not know what toppings you're supporting. I can make it more complicated too, imagine there's two other persons and you say: "I'll have whatever you three decide to have." Now you're supporting whatever means me and the other two persons have for deciding, if that's a majority's vote, then that will be what you're siding with. So not voting is the act of siding with the winner of the vote, in the sense it isn't a neutral position. Sure not voting does not actually require any physical action, like you don't have to deregister yourself or anything, you could just stay still until it's done. But it is an act in the sense of having it influence the outcome of the elections. The only way to be neutral would be to vote, but pick at random the choice. That would still impact a given election, but over the aggregate of elections over time it should approximate neutrality.