But if you DO participate, Theye would simply say, "you DID participate, thereby making the voice of your pleasure heard loudly and clearly." And in this Theye are correct - by participating, you DO in fact promote greater currency and social credibility for Theire claims of legitimacy (whether you intended to or not). But by NOT particpating, you do NOT do so -
regardless of what Theye claim ...
The answer to your "interesting question" is what Theye most and truly fear. Sufficiently massive non-participation would seriously degrade the currency and social credibility of Theire claims to legitimacy. That is why Theye fear it - and that, in turn, is why Theye must resort to (falsely) asserting co-option of non-participation (
à la "if you don't vote, you have no right to complain," etc., etc.).
Campbell's Law also applies here: "
You can't do just one thing."
If motivated by actual opposition rather than mere apathy, mass popular non-participation would be symptomized by much, much more than merely "not voting."
You have already mentioned "mass civil disobedience." There would also be "mass active non-compliance," "mass vocal dissent & denunciation of Themme," etc., etc. (perhaps even including or culminating in openly violent resistance to Themme).
In other words, "not voting" is not sensibly to be understood as the cause of mass opposition to Themme, but rather as just one more effect or expression of such opposition. Participation is deleterious to the cause of opposition - it plays right into Theire hands, and it redounds to Theire benefit. This is why voting for or otherwise "supporting" Trump (or any other Clowne) in any way - even if only for "entertainment" purposes - is counterproductive. It allows Themme to claim legitimacy (whether that was intended by the participants or not) and it sluices opposition into "safe" channels (which may pose cosmetic challenges, but no fundamental dangers, to Themme).
