If it ever came down to it, I think I lack the sangfroid to actually kill someone over a political disagreement. But I'd definitely throw him in an oubliette for a while and take his best stuff, especially if he got all his stuff by killing people or throwing them in oubliettes.

Voting is easy. Participation is difficult. In most cases, the local political system has evolved to perpetuate the interests of those who have been in power the longest. Creating change is 100x more difficult than maintaining the status quo. And that built-in resistance to change is corruptible.

Think about how blatantly unfair gerrymandering is, how unpopular it is, and how prevalent it remains in spite of that. It's almost as if the system is designed to capture the energy of passionate dissidents and dissipate it, such that it cannot be used to perform useful work. The wild goose chase and the snipe hunt are revered traditions for tiring people out and redirecting their energy into useless effort.

It's not entirely apathy. It's a rejection of the established political system as the most efficient means of producing the desired effects. You can vote your whole life, and never see a speck of change until after you join a general strike or boycott. The money follows the power that follows the money. Your side isn't going to win unless you can use your energy efficiently.

You're metaphorically taking on the role of the casino complaining that fewer people want to play the games that give you a 5% house advantage, instead of the ones that only give you a 0.5% house advantage. Nobody wants to play a game they can't win in the long run. They pick up the gun to say "this game is over, let's play another." If the game were actually fair, it could go on forever without permanent winners or losers.