First, speaking as staff, let's try to make sure that all disagreement is civil, please.
Second, speaking as a slightly confused participant in this thread, all you and the OP seem to be saying is that not-voting (or 'actively not voting', or however you want to phrase it) is different and anything different must be better, which I'm not prepared to accept as a given. This is why you need some sort of solution, suggestion, or general direction to go in, because if all you've got is "Let's do this and see what happens!" you're going to have some trouble getting anyone to take that leap of faith.
I've tried reading as much as I can, as it's an interesting topic. And I think I agree with this the most.
I fail to see HOW anything can be changed by removing yourself from a system. You say voting hasn't affected anything related to climate change (Or insert any topic). But, who says the majority of people actually care about that topic? And care enough to make it a key issue in an election. The point isn't always that one vote will always matter. I think the greater point is that, and this is really key, an INFORMED electorate can create changes that DO matter.
You want me to think climate change matters, make me. Show me. Tell me what I can do to produce the change that you think needs come about. This is where public discourse and debate truly matter. Bring data to light. Open up a debate.
Personally, I'll take an informed person who makes it their duty to study the topics and candidates, and then doesn't vote. Over one who willy-nilly votes. If they choose to overly express themselves other ways, I disagree but more power to them. Likewise, if you want change and say things need to change, I want proof. Prove to me that your way is better. That your ideas are better. If you don't think the populace is hearing the right things, change the discourse. Start with your voice and gather others who agree. Then spread it around to more people to inform them. That, my friends, is the meaning of grass-roots politics.
But, to sit there and say don't vote because the system is broken and not voting will create change makes no sense to me. If I disagree, and I vote, I've just won the election for my side. Therefore, my vote mattered. You lost 0-1. You had a chance to make your voice heard and decided not to.
If you look at what happens after those referendums where parties tell their members not to vote, they usually get screwed in some way. Laws get passed because the officials did NOT vote and had no control or no voice (Iraq currently comes to mind, as does the USSR boycotting the UN Security Council votes). Then, they have a hand behind their back because of their inaction.
I may have skipped some things, but I've yet to read what else should be done? I will never say the current system is perfect. But, right now it's the best we've come up with. Speaking as a US citizen, the fact that my country is over two hundred years old and still kicking with the same sets of laws and constitution is rather remarkable in itself. Now, if you or anyone thinks they have a better system to replace it, I'd love to hear it and put it to a vote. If more people vote for it and I don't, guess what, you win.
If you don't vote you can't claim that the system is denying you anything. In fact, quite the opposite. You had a chance and chose
not to get involved. If a minority group chooses not to vote in an election, and the opposing party wins, you can't just turn around and claim it's illegitimate, or that it's not democratic. They chose
not to vote. They were given a choice and decided it would be in their best interests not to vote. So they didn't. Democracy assumes an informed electorate, and indeed thrives on it.
Addition: Oh, and if you're able to get enough people to abstain from voting. Enough people to get whatever point across that you'd like. Why not just have them vote in the first place? You've done all the hard work anyways, why not just vote?