In elections non-voters show their vote by not voting and in this case these non-voters are saying that they want no change. They see the evil behind both or they want to wash their hands in future, when the shit hits the fan. Nobody can blame them if any of the two implementations fails. < The coward approach to this issue >
I would rather blame the non-voters if their vote would have made a difference and it did not, if the winner fails in the future. ^grrrrrrrr^
This is pretty much what I was thinking while reading the thread. Although ignoring non-voters would get us closer to deciding, that's something you simply cannot do. It is as legitimate as blacklisting transactions or flagging "older" nodes, so to speak, or any other kind of discrimination.
Non voters are saying that they either want no change
or that they believe no change currently in the works is what they believe Bitcoin requires at the moment.
If they don't vote because they don't care/want to wash their hands, well... They're not doing any good to themselves and others in general.