We're all still very curious about that second step, I'm sure.
As I mentioned before, I feel that this is beyond the scope of this discussion. There is too much of an unknown factor when it comes to 'what comes next', because of a variety of reasons. Next steps would highly depend on the political climate at the time and the actual country in which an election boycott would happen (the world doesn't revolve around the USA after all). Follow up actions could range from protests and strikes to the formations of political movements centered around these issues that have actual traction. It highly depends on what the situation is at the time. There are so many unknown factors that I don't see any point in making any predictions or presenting 'plans' on how to proceed with this, before this is anything other than just a concept being discussed on an online forum. You can be curious all you like, but there isn't an answer for every question out there. Before you ask a question, you should think about the possible answers yourself first.
Not really All you've more or less said is not voting is a step that will lead to a revolution, without saying WHY it would. Most of those who don't vote, don't care. They are apathetic, not conscientious objectors. As long as it doesn't affect them, they literally don't care. They accept the decisions made by the ones who do vote.
I did reply to the part you quoted. The bold part specifically pointed to election turnout being into the single digits, which I've shown to be an incorrect statement when it comes to presidential elections (which I consider to be the ones relevant to this discussion). Perhaps you've skipped that reply, perhaps you should take another look at the previous page.
You're also refusing to try and even participate in the system to try and change it from the inside because -you- don't feel it can be changed except by a revolution. You're just throwing up your hands and saying it's hopeless, so it's time for a REVOLUTION. If enough people voted, the system -would- be changed, believe me. The politicians cannot survive if everyone, or even 90% of the voting population actually voted. A lot of them would be removed from office. As Eric Cantor's loss has shown, it's possible for voters to make a difference. To just say it's not possible and walk away when there is evidence you're wrong seems kind of shallow. You're not even trying to make a difference.
I'm taking a look at this issue from an historical perspective. I explained this before, several times in this topic, but I'll repeat; In the last couple of decades (perhaps as far back as the 50s) there have been no serious (positive) changes in policy with regards to economic inequality, corruption in politics and climate change. If you can give me any reason to believe why this would change in the near future, please feel free to do so. I haven't read any solid arguments against this point.
The examples you're bringing up are irrelevant because they concern social politics. Eric Cantor wasn't voted out in the primaries because he was against fixing economic inequality, because he was against doing something about climate change or because he was not tough enough on political corruption.
Finally, you can make my position seem all weird, uneducated, shallow, lazy, etc, but I'd request that you remain civil in your responses and just debate the topic on its merits and arguments, not because you feel like calling people out because their opinions are different from yours.