A long time ago I lived in a rural area with a hotly disputed election. People phoned me all day long "get out and vote", "it's really close" "it's important", and so forth. I did not vote and the election wound up in a tie, a dead heat. No kidding. Of course my first thought was that I could have swung it one way or the other. My second thought was that I didn't actually care which faction won as in my view they were two sides of the same coin and I had no actual preference for one over the other. Maybe a different outcome in Florida would have changed the world significantly, and maybe not. I would not have voted there either. Vote all you want, by all means, but it's just not something I do.             

I think Tok's point that "People vote when it matters to them" is also true with respect to general human behavior. Oddly though, I would be even less likely to vote if I cared deeply about an issue because of the dilemma created by a sense of being bound by the outcome. It's easy if you vote and your side wins. It's not so easy if your side loses over an issue you care deeply about and you have agreed - by voting - to go along with the outcome. Such processes, over time, tend to produce "adequate" but not "exceptionally good" products or systems because of the cumulative effect of the inevitable compromises. The handoff from founder to managers is always messy and dangerous. I think DASH is doing it well, but I still won't be voting - especially if I care deeply about an issue.       

To each his own.