If everybody followed your line of reasoning we would never have abolished slavery - that was a decades-long fight which started with most people, in parliament or out of it, either thinking slavery was a good idea or not caring and ended with it being declared illegal and repugnant to basic human dignity.
There isn't really a logical connection between these situations other than gradual social change as - something. But in fact, the slavery debate had a lot of economic impetus behind it, and certainly few commoners would have had the opportunity to own a slave, or even hire a servant. Can you see anything similar with voter turnout? Furthermore, at this stage in our history gradual change for voting will always meet reversals that wipe away small gains like a tide lapping at fruitless sandcastles, at best, and at worst will rapidly become obsolete as the structure of society changes radically. Yet another problem with the comparison is that things like abolition, feminism, queer pride, and so on are all about increasing the social inclusion of marginalized groups; voter turnout doesn't fit neatly into that model, as voting is already something most adults can do.

To be clear, this has been an explanation of why the comparison to the buildup of the abolitionist movement throughout the world doesn't serve you well.

Idaho is saying - I don't like our politics and by my self I can't change it, so I'll just give up on the country rather than making an effort to persuade people.
I never claimed to agree with Idaho's perspective - which he gives precious little exposition (here) anyway - nor to believe that an engaged popular vote is not useful. In fact, I'm rather inclined toward the opposite.

However -

There are people in the city who, on a Saturday afternoon, stand in the middle of the city centre and shout about what they care about through a microphone - I've seen them and on occasion I've stopped to listen.

Does Idaho do THAT?
Why is that useful and noble? The so-called "A for effort"?

But those who try and try with passion typically amount to either useless, clamorous fools or the worst leaders of the world.

I really would like to hear a cogent argument for why "voting is good", something besides the tired, self-aggrandizing confabulations or red herrings both sides seem to limit themselves to.