Thanks, and I understand that, but we are probably talking at cross-purposes.
I know I'm appearing thick or contrarian, but I don't see the link between my preferences showing up in the outcome and my being enfranchised. There are different voting systems and they have different ways of generating different outcomes. They are justified by different ways of understanding democracy, but they are usually advocated for by people who don't see their preferences reflected by one system and see them reflected better by another system. As you probably know better than me, the Irish use multimember constituencies, a formula setting thresholds, and a process (building little piles of votes) for redistributing second, third and x preferences. The Irish are ok with this for reasons of history and habit, but you don't hear them saying Thank God for the Hare Quota and all the men and women who died for it. An extreme example, of course, but it helps explain why UK people didn't choose electoral reform or even choose to vote on it when they had the opportunity. It's fiddly, counter-intuitive and they aren't that interested.
The wasted vote/my vote counting argument has legs, but it hasn't got much to do with democracy. People typically don't give a fig about the opposition's votes counting or being wasted. And, of course, as a matter of fact, unless the outcome is decided by a single vote, my vote actually doesn't matter or count. What if everybody thought like that -but they don't.