Thank you for the shout out!
I actually prefer your "no rulers" write-in suggestion over my "none of the above" suggestion.
The only thing I will add is this:
"If, as an example, 90% of the population don't vote, how would that impact the average citizen's willingness to comply to rulers when only 10% of the population agreed to be ruled?"
I think it's a mistake to assume that voting is an agreement to be ruled. If it were, then not voting could (by default) be seen as not agreeing to be ruled. However, the average person isn't even aware of the concept that having no rulers could be a viable option, and therefore without a mechanism in place to spread and voice that idea (such as writing in "no rulers") then the average person does and will continue to see non-voting as simple apathy... which does not at all translate to opposition to having rulers.
I think there's a large portion of society which simply does whatever everyone else is doing. It's not about opposing having rulers as much as it's about the revelation that the "consent of the governed" is not factually accurate. Clear numbers representing how many didn't vote would help bring that idea home, IMO.
Would "the coalescence of the governed " be more accurate?