You might have the desire to v*te. You might have the ability, the opportunity, and the power to v*te. One thing you don't have is the "right" to v*te.
That's because such a right can't exist-- the very idea is in conflict with rights. To imagine you have the "right" to impose government or politicians or legislation on others is to deny the existence of rights.
If you are in a situation where you believe you need to v*te in self-defense, there are other, more effective ways to defend yourself. Ways that don't guarantee "collateral damage".
V*ting in "self-defense" is like firing randomly into a crowd and hoping you hit the bad guy who is violating you. Sure, it's possible you might get him, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it. If enough people join you in firing randomly into the crowd, your chances of success go up. So do your chances of harming the innocent.
Yes, if you know your target-- say a bad ballot proposal that threatens to violate your liberty-- and enough of you get together to v*te against that one thing and all of you leave the rest of the ballot blank, you could credibly claim that you v*ted in self-defense.
But what if your side loses? Will you comply? If not, why not skip the unnecessary step?
You are almost always going to be outnumbered because [Unfortunate Truth #1]. People respond to promises that they won't have to be responsible. And bad guys run the election system from top to bottom and they count the v*tes. The game is rigged and by now you ought to know it.
I get it. I used to think liberty might be won-- or protected-- by v*ting for the less bad candidate, too. But then I observed and learned from my observations. That new information caused me to change my mind.