Thats why its ironic. You are accusing me of inferring when im simply pointing out that you don't know. You are assuming everyone not voting is a protest. You simply have no clue.
Democracy isn't democracy without a majority, and when the majority doesn't participate, for whatever the reason, consciously or not, it's a majority or a Mandate in a very visceral and undeniably democratic way.
And if you don't know how many non participates it would take to theoretically "stop the game" then you don't know that either.
I don't know because I don't know, despite that I was questioning you rhetorically with any arbitrary percentage below that at which a majority could Theoretically be a Democracy, a threshold that hasn't been reached in as long as a majority haven't all cast their votes for one person or one issue.
You are making massive assumptions about stuff that you have no actual information on or limit.
Such as what a Democracy is and isn't and what or am I making assumptions on what majority does when they don't participate like you who claim that despite their non-participation it doesn't mean anything and can mean everything, but certainly not that it's either democracy or majority, or a valid choice even.
Clearly some percentage of the population will keep on voting. You plan is so extreme as to be meaningless.
I made no suggestions.
Also you haven't recognized that your protests aren't even recognized because again, you are assuming everyone that doesn't vote is a protest. False.
It's not my business what others recognize, it's evident to anyone that a choice to not vote doesn't necessitate a protest, but non-participation and the questions is at what point does a Democracy stop being a democracy and why is the choice of non-participation not recognized and clearly so as NON-PARTICIPATION?