Fair. Responsiveness just measures whether officials react to you, not whether what they do is just. Stability can as easily mean a rotten arrangement is locked in place. A system can respond to voters and stabilize around something ugly, and history has plenty of that. My point wasn't that voting makes the outcome good. It was narrower: opting out mostly reduces the small influence you might have. That's a claim about leverage, not about virtue. There's good evidence governments track voters more than non-voters, and votes move policy at the margins, but the margins are small and often don't touch the things people are angriest about. Same with stability. It's a neutral property.