Alright, fair enough. Random votes can be annoying. But consider the following:
We all have to vote for someone because abstaining is not allowed. Traditionally, the first day of a mafia game such as this one starts with a flurry of nonsensical random votes for whoever takes each player's fancy - for example, every single game ever hosted at the .org. My vote put Snerk in very little danger, and I would, of course, have abandoned it if any better leads came up (which they have, now: see below). You can bandwagon me if you wish, choxorn et al, but cease with the 'I don't like random votes' rhetoric and have the decency to call a spade a spade: you voted for me because I was the first person to speak up.
It is only by tossing some names into the pile that leads will appear - you're all veteran mafia players and you know that very well. The lead that has appeared from both my vote and the votes you placed on me is that some players are unwilling to contribute to the procedure, even going so far as to break the rules by abstaining. In my opinion, that is, to borrow a phrase that Diamondeye might use, 'scummy'. For that reason I remove my vote for
Snerk and place a new one on
electric926, because being the second to do something is more suspicious than being the first, I think.
Now see reason, chox, that doesn't make any sense at all. If we have nothing to act on then
every vote is essentially a random vote. In fact, the situation you described is the only case where random votes are excusable.