Describing any action as a vote about your future identity is a way of thinking about the world. It makes sense within the particular framework this article is presenting, but it is not a universally held belief, and it's not self-evidently true. It's a metaphor.

Here's an example: if you choose not a rob a bank 10,000 times, that's 10,000 votes for not being a bank robber. Then if you choose to rob a bank just one time, you're suddenly a bank robber. 10,000 to 1, the number of votes doesn't actually matter.

That's a silly example, but what it means is that your identity isn't always the result of a bunch of small decisions. Often there's just one "vote", and that is the decision you make, the action you take.

One objection to this may be "but being a bank robber isn't who you are, it's just something you did." If so, I wonder how to square that with the example of becoming more of a smoker by smoking more cigarettes? Can I vote not to be a smoker, even if I smoke a lot of cigarettes? Or to be less of a smoker by smoking more cigarettes? That doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, hope this clarifies my objection: "actions are votes about who you will become" is a metaphorical explanation, not a literal one, so that comment way upthread is not patently false in my opinion, even if it's arguable.

Choosing not to rob a bank 10 000 times still means you are a potential bank robber, like everyone else on this planet. At the 10 001 choice where it actually happens, this simply turns the potential to actual.

That is entirely correct, but it strains the voting metaphor a lot.