Well, if the no includes everything, why not join half of the population in the US, and extend the "no" to voting as well?
If this hypothetical party votes "no" on every suggested political course of action, other political, force-backed actions as the consequence of that system-legitimizing "no" vote will be taken, won't they?
It's like Ben Stone (@badquakerdotcom) says, voting either way is always an attempt to force one individual's will on another individual. It's always immoral, though it can sometimes bring temporary relief at the local levels. Long term, though, it's like drinking whisky to "cure" a bullet wound, or chopping leaves off a poison tree.
You cannot get rid of the tree by watering it. So if the vote were to uproot it, great, as long as this plan by design is non-violent. This is silly though, because to vote to "uproot" the government is to attempt use the very same evil processes, groups, and powers which established it and are interested in preserving it, to destroy it, whilst being openly vocal about detesting it. It's like asking a wild lion not to maul you just long enough so you can feed him a poison pill, except he is sentient, and is not only wild, but also knows what you are trying to do.
This is why the Kokesh "plan" is absolutely delusional.
Maybe I misunderstand what you mean about the blockchain-based voting, though.
It depends on how your system is organised. Where I am from voting no means that nothing will be changed and legislation will be frozen. In this way you are not forcing your will on others, you are just being an obstacle in the system of the state. In my opinion this is better than not voting at all. If a pure no-party would obtain 50% that would mean the system is officially unable to act. If 50% dont vote they can still pass laws but they can no longer claim to speak for the people. In the end I guess as you point out it doesn't matter as much, living free in private and ignoring the state may be the better solution.
by blockchain I just mean that we have to trust the representatives to really vote no always. So they could lock some bitcoin into a smart contract that they will never get back should they vote yes. There still is trust required though.