OK, you clearly define voting as being inherently violent and an illegitimate means of gaining authority over others, so I'd like to ask the following questions:
If the slave trade was legal and a politician - let's say, Adam - was going to shut down the plantations and free the slaves, would you consider that a violent, imposing act of authority?
If Adam, or some other libertarian politician, wanted votes to release all inmates who had been incarcerated for 'victimless crimes' (most of the prison population), would you consider that an imposing act of authority?
I guess the real question is, how can you enforce freedom onto others? If someone is looking for votes to free innocent people from prison, or to destroy 'the war on drugs', how can any of those things be imposing or authoritarian?
Another question:
If an armed militia stormed Washington tomorrow, killed the politicians, killed the police and fended off the military, all in the name of abolishing government, would you consider that a violent, authoritarian act, or a legitimate means of self-defense? And also, would you prefer to see that (physical rebellion resulting in mass loss of life), rather than someone using a political platform to peacefully spread the message of freedom?
There are only three ways the anarchist/voluntaryist dream is ever going to be realized:
1.) Adam, or someone like Adam, runs for office and wakes up the statists in a political campaign.
2.) An armed militia declares their right to self-defense and sparks a civil war with the police and military, resulting in mass bloodshed and loss of life. If the militia win, they declare that anyone who tries to take the throne to enforce their will on others will be executed, so as to prevent government from ever forming again.
3.) More and more of the masses read books like The Most Dangerous superstition and give up their belief in authority; government eventually fizzles out.
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't have much faith in the masses reading into the philosophy of self-ownership and anarchism anytime soon, so I'd pick option No. 1 as our best bet for a mass awakening, although option No. 2 is also entirely legitimate, albeit much more violent.
OK, you clearly define voting as being inherently violent
If the whole act was simply to free the slaves and nothing else (such a proposition never happens in real government measures, as someone also stands to gain politically, and someone to lose), then yes, I would vote for it. The scenario is unrealistic, but sure.
There are over 260 million corpses piled up behind your "peaceful" politics in the last century alone. Government does not dissolve itself through its own mechanisms. This is common sense.
What the masses read or don't read doesn't change what is right and wrong.