If voting is participatory government (common opinion) and if government is a territorial monopoly in violence (common political science definition) then it follows that voting is participation in violence.
I am aware that contrarian voting is a frequently suggested strategy to signal disapproval, but I am not convinced it is effective, and the lower the participation rate overall, the harder it is for those in power to claim a public mandate, especially when the majority of eligible voters did not participate at all.
Practical reality seems to be that voting is part popularity contest for the unofficial aristocracy, part scoreboard for propagandist and influence peddlers. Some voters are true believers, and that's not a bad thing. But if it wasn't obvious before, the Bernie Sanders 2016 DNC scandal has made it obvious to people that pay a shred of attention. So I still think there is a firewall of voting as a plebeian and giving active consent to violence. Also our opinions differ on the topic of violence. It's a tool in a toolbox, often necessary to counter violence, but obviously is overused.
I suppose my language could use more precision, despite the delightful alliteration of "voting is violence." There is a distinction to be drawn between initiating coercive force against peaceful people, the use of proportionate force against someone who initiates aggression.
I know a lot of folks recommend "defensive voting" on local ballot initiatives where a single vote is not statistically equivalent to zero. However, voting for a politician who has promised a given policy means voting for the violence necessary to fund and enforce it, if voting works as we were all taught in civics class.
Bernie in 2016, Ron Paul in 2012, and so many other people have been crushed by the party imposing their insiders against any internal disruptive elements. The duopoly is a self-perpetuating machine as it divides and conquers.