Well, I don't think you'd be able to parse through the intentions of non-voters in such a way. A non-voter may be a protest non-voter, a non-voter who thinks their vote is worth nothing, a non-voter who was actually unable to vote, or a non-voter who thinks the two candidates are functionally the same for them, or any and all other reasons for non-voting. Just because a non-voter may not view their non-vote as a protest non-vote, doesn't mean they don't give a fuck and are okay with whatever outcome, is my overall point.

With that said, I don't think a protest non-vote is the opposite of a complacent non-vote. Functionally they're the same. I guess if you wanted to judge a person by their non-voting intentions, you could do something like that. But I'm not sure its worth the time.

I guess its worth noting that even though I agree with the sentiment of the meme and the goat story, it doesn't map 1:1 in the real world. I don't think someone is necessarily foolish to vote, for example. I did. But generally I agree with Henry David Thoreau when it comes down to it:

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or back gammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obli­gation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.”