Well sure someone could argue that the market isn't an actually reasonable set of choices that people can vote on, but how can it not be considered at least some form of voting? There's been at least 30-40 years in which consumers could try to find out. Unfortunately there's only a finite amount of resources in the market and consumers have to compromise on what takes priority in the tech industry, like getting work done or tackling issues that are visible only in front of them. When people collectively vote for politicians they also have to compromise.

I don't feel extremely on either end, but I would prefer if consumers could own their choices and not try to pretend otherwise.

Well, ok, what would you do in the current situation to "vote" for affordable RAM?

In a perfectly free and fair market and in a world where companies would plan their product strategy exclusively based on current consumer data, this would be true. But neither holds in the real world: The current AI gold rush is now something that is largely decided between investors, boardrooms and hardware vendors with little input from small everyday consumers. And I wager this had been the case for many "tech trends" before that seem more forced on users than being a reaction on them - such as forced updates, mandatory accounts, subscriptions, in-app purchases etc.

Even if it were possible to vote in the market (I deeply disagree though), the ultra rich have waaaaaaay more "votes" in the market to a point where anyone's vote doesn't matter.