I can. If you can't be bothered to vote your vote isn't needed. You have no clue what you are voting for and you can not, in any conceivable way, make a reasonable judgment of who to vote. I cannot think of a scenario where having more people, who have no clue about why or who they are voting on (and this is sadly the vast majority of people), will be better than having less.
It looks good if have there are a lot of people participating but you have not gained anything if those that voted did not have the slightest of interest in it.
I agree that people without a clue have no business voting. But be careful making the assumption that someone who "can't be bothered to vote" is less informed.
Even the well-informed can end up thinking "my vote doesn't matter anyway, so why bother." And rationally, they are not exactly wrong. Yet, the system would break down if everyone took that view. People need to be encouraged to vote, even though they may see it as a waste of time, because in aggregate their votes are important.
It looks good if have there are a lot of people participating but you have not gained anything if those that voted did not have the slightest of interest in it.