The conundrum you have arrived at is a predictable consequence of beginning with a word salad, and then trying to draw real world, cash value conclusions from it.
Ultimately your theory of rights is a word game unless other people agree and to an extent, respect them. Voting is one way of achieving consensus on what other people will ask of you, respect of your asks, and the degree to which they will leave you to your own devices. Voting is a pretty good method by which you can test your language about rights - as you can see, other people will start to question the arbitrary categories you come up with, which will give you a good idea of what to expect in the real world and how to go about convincing other people to approach you in the way you want to be approached.
I think you're oversimplifying what I posted in the OP.
Rights aren't just rights. The SCOTUS looks at them through all manner of lenses. Individual, collective, incorporated, positive and negative. All of these perspectives have been actively used arguing for and against various civil rights cases before the SCOTUS, and in the court's opinions.
If you just go out and throw out "I got muh rights!" on a topic without being sure you want to use the perspective you are using... you could end up creating legal precedent supporting something that you might actually oppose.
"Words offer the means to meaning, and for those that will listen, the enunciation of Truth." --V.
What I'm driving at here is an exploration of whether voting is a positive of negative right. Since I'm actively pursuing Arizona State legislation to alter Arizona voting laws, I have to be prepared to live with the consequences of whatever I contribute to drafting. And its potential ramifications on the meaning of rights down the road.