Dr. Drake answered the question, but here are some citations:
Here, the paradox is called, “…one of the most persistent and recalcitrant empirical puzzles for the rational choice theory of politics.” A Possible Solution to the Paradox of Voter Turnout on JSTOR
That cite refers to the costs of “…personal time and energy into driving to the polls and casting their ballot.”
Well, the marginal vote never makes a difference for non-local elections. Because when the polling is close, the judiciary decides, not the marginal voter. And the winning margin almost always exceeds one vote.
There’s nothing about allocating blame or credit in that argument. It’s just a matter of debating whether one should vote at all. (I say one should, but I try to acknowledge the existence of the paradox.)
Incidentally one philosopher argues that voting is in no way obligatory, but that if one votes, one should vote on behalf of the common good. Also, there’s nothing wrong with buying or selling a vote. Frankly, I think this point is only quasi-topical in this thread, but I thought I’d include it for completeness. Cite: Jason Brennan, The Ethics of Voting, Princeton University Press, 2011, 222pp., $29.95 (hbk), ISBN 9780691144818