Anarchism and Voting

I have decided to boycott the upcoming Polish Parliamentary elections due to the fact the party I supported was not allowed to participate in countrywide elections (despite this being unconstitutional). So far I have always maintained that despite being anti-State, anarchists should exercise their privilege to vote (or, as the democrats like to say, the 'right to vote') for the purpose of self-defense. This was also Lysander Spooner's argument - voting can be used legitimately as a form of self-defense, protecting yourself from hostile aggressors (i.e. other voters). The great Herbert Spencer argued likewise. He thought voting was legitimate because there is in fact no way to show your disapproval of state policy in any other way. Whether I would vote for one party, another party, or refuse to vote at all, most democratic demagogues would argue that I have consented to the state and that the government over me is legitimate. As Spencer puts it: "So, curiously enough, it seems that he [the citizen] gave his consent in whatever way he acted - whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine this."
Obviously this is a difficult choice to make and I think it is a personal one. Any pacifists among us, for example, cannot vote because of their belief that even self-defense is not legitimate (or ill-advised). Over the past couple weeks, however, I have been leaning in the direction of boycotting all elections myself. I think that choosing a political party could potentially be an aggressive act against the portion of the population who did not vote. They did not use the voting mechanism against me, so I should not use it against them. Democracy puts us all in a very difficult position. The democratic creed is "attack others, or be attacked yourself". The Democratic state is where we really see the famous Hobbesian 'war of all against all'. Especially in today's age when pretty much every caveat of our lives has been politicized. Democratic elections end up deciding about what happens not only on public property, but also on private property and even (alas!) in our own bodies! How much more dangerous and invasive can democracy become?
I am therefore leaning more and more in the sceptical anti-pragmatic direction of ignoring all elections and politics in general.

It seems redundat to remind everyone of those famous words by Lord Acton, who said that "the one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
So let's think for a moment. Is egoistic self-defense and unjust democratic peace worth putting ourselves in the position of being those tyrants in the majority?