Anarchy, in its purest form, is not following others; and this is affirmed by the word itself. The term anarchy, at its Greek root, translates to 'without rulers or leaders.' Therefore, anarchy is not following others, nor being ruled by others.
In fact, the antonym (opposite) of 'leader' is 'follower.' Now, since there cannot be a leader without a follower, anarchy theoretically cannot exist with followers; because, as already stated, anarchy is to be without leaders, and it also means to be without followers since one cannot exist without the other.
To follow is to be led and ruled, either physically or philosophically; and to follow a group -- especially a group of anarchists -- is about as far away as one can get from practicing pure, unadulterated anarchy.
Rhetorically speaking, if all the anarchists don't vote, wouldn't it be anarchy to vote so long as that is what one wants to do for oneself?
I mean, if an anarchist wants to vote and doesn't vote because a group of anarchists tell her not to, then that is not anarchy. That is being told what to do by a group and following their rules, not your own rules.
Honestly, now, if all the anarchists are doing the same thing, then where is the anarchy? More importantly, where is the thinking?
Anarchy is not about being complacent in one's thinking, ever, because that is when it becomes easy to be led by others and to mindlessly do what others do, or do what others want you to do for them without question; and that is not my anarchy.