Adam, I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. I comprehend your argument, it's in the realm of existentialism. No, voting is not existential violence perpetrated by the voter.

Yet, a vote is powerful, and by wielding that power in such a way wherein the end result will be violence perpetrated on an unwilling participant; that would make the man or woman who voted, collectively responsible for the end result.

If one subscribed to your argument, then if someone hired a hitman to whack a guy, he wouldn't be responsible for the hit, because he didn't physically do the thing.

I've got to disagree, but I'm not saying that this is a simple. A vs not A issue. It's more in the murky middle, because the government doesn't care if we consent or not.

This is government:

They like to put people in impossible positions. Where your damned if you do, and damned if you don't. It's not snowflakery to think that voting is violence.

People who think voting is violence are the people who don't want to choose who Neegan will kill next, because they know that their vote is a powerful endorsement.

I'm sorry you don't like metaphors, but it's an effective way to communicate, and I don't see anything wrong with it.

When you said: "There is an incredible opportunity that we have, that through the election process; withdraw our consent from the state, and ensure a peaceful, orderly, responsible transition to a voluntary society."

What you want people to do, is vote you as leader of the State. Maybe if they vote you in, you can do some of these things. Maybe you can do more right, than you do wrong. I question weather or not the (not)President would have the power to nullify decisions made by the other coequal branches of government.

Congress makes the laws, which are bought and paid for by powerful private interest groups. Lets just take one issue, Marijuana. How would you legalize Marijuana if congress makes the laws, and they are a coequal branch that you have no power over?