[citation_please]

It's quite reasonable to suppose that there are many reasons why one person would or would not mobilize to vote, and, correct me if I'm wrong, it's common knowledge that the "swing voter" effect is not due to undecided people becoming decided, rather that people are marginally motivated or unmotivated to vote.

So, in the spirit of democracy, where the desires of all those who /can/ vote (not just those who /do/ vote) are respected, it is probably interesting to examine why voters do and do not find the motivation to vote. Hypothetically, if we had mind-reading devices, and motivation was not a prerequisite for voting, which side of the vote would have benefited?

Asymmetrical motivation is the hypothesis that in referenda where Action/No-Action are the choices, there will be more voter motivation for Action rather than No-Action. This very reasonably applies to Brexit.

[TangoTrotFox]

A swing vote just refers to a voter whose decision cannot be accurately predicted. Not voting is as much a part of democracy as voting. Even in extremely formal and small settings ranging from national congresses to the EU, abstaining from casting a vote one way or the other is very much a viable decision in and of itself.

[citation_please]

I would argue that abstaining from voting in a formal setting is significantly different than not "voting" in modern elections. There's significant historical evidence of voter suppression, including suffragist movements. Voter motivation is not something that I think we should brush away lightly, because it has an impact on democracy just like voter manipulation and voter suppression.