I argue that low voter turnout in a country like the US can indicate a very healthy situation. That is, that the people do not feel that the government is the means to the ends they desire.

Whatever career, business, project, idea, location, relationship they want to pursue, the government isn't in their way and so changing it though political participation is less important.

Compare this situation to that in some South American and African countries where voter participation may be high, but a change of who's in power could result in businesses being nationalized, homes and property seized, and in some particularly unfortunate circumstances, a real threat of death for you and those you love.

For the average American, what threat did they face when the Congress recently moved to majority Democrat? How did their day to day lives change? Did they suddenly have more freedom? Less?

And look at the example of Australia's 47% turnout in 1926. Australians were presumably living fruitful lives without participating in every election. The introduction of compulsory voting meant that not voting would result in the loss of property. Not loss of life or business, just a small bit of property, a fine.

In a broad stroke, it would seem that negative incentives are frequently what drives high voter participation.

And so I think it's incorrect to say that 50% voter turnout represents disenfranchisement because it may be quite reasonable for 50% not to participate because they stand to gain nothing and stand to lose nothing.

For a free nation, I believe it is best if everyone pursues their own happiness. And given that the government is usually not the means to happiness (however happiness is defined), the pursuit of high voter turnout, to me, has little value.