Now, maybe this third will start to exist and vote if they either wake up, are seriously hit financially or someone annoys them enough.
Until then they decided to erase themselves from any decision making and if the world was fair they , would not have the right to any comment regarding whatever is related to their country.
The later does not preclude the former. They exist, and they don't vote. I'm not sure what nitpick you're trying to make.
The non voters are routinely used in discussions to lower the results of various parties. The message is "in reality only (a small) percentage supports them" (and then a ratio voters for that party / total population is taken).
What I am trying to say is that the people who did not vote do not exist in these statistics. Taking them into account is just a tactic to lower the results of competitors.
Additionally (but this is utopia) these people should not be allowed to comment in any form about the situation of the country (but again - this is utopia of course)
I also see examples of "he only got 1/3 of the vote", but that's not what I was trying to do. I was pointing out non-voters as effectively voting "either is fine", in which case effectively they both got 2/3 of the vote.
Interestingly enough, I noticed, at least in Europe, that a low participation is usually a sign of a country going well. People are more of less unaffected by the changes in politics so "either is fine".
And then when there are serious thigs at stake, the participation raises significantly. This was the case for instance in France in 2002 during the second round of the presidential election (Chirac vs. Le Pen) or in Poland in 1989 when the first free election was taking place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...