It might be good to induce more people to vote, but it doesn't follow it's good for you to push the people you talk to to vote. Maybe you do nothing and have no real influence, so all you're doing is blowing hot air. But if you do have influence, then you might in a weird way undermine democracy and hurt the poor and unprivileged. Think about it.
Many people think that democracies should represent the will of the people. To do so, they think, requires ensuring that actual voting electorate is in some way demographically similar to or proportional to the eligible voting population.
This, after all, is part of why voter suppression is bad--we don't want the voting population to be disproportionately white, rich, or whatnot. Some people advocate compulsory voting in order to help ensure the actual voting population is demographically similar to the eligible population. Many people oppose the cruder forms of epistocracy on these grounds, though of course overall epistocracy is far less racist than actual democracy.
As a matter of empirics, in the US and in most democracies with voluntary voting systems, privileged people vote at higher rates than underprivileged people. For instance, rich people vote more than the poor, the employed more than the unemployed, and so on.
My Facebook friends are mostly college professors, which means they are mostly rich, educated, employed, professional, white/Asian, and otherwise privileged people. They spend lots of time imploring each other to vote. College professors in general spend lots of time trying to convince each other, their demographically similar friends, and demographically similar students to vote. Similar remarks apply to my neighbors and colleagues, all of whom are overwhelmingly white or Asian, high-income, employed, professional, educated, and such.
So, the funny thing is that when they push each other to vote, they thereby pressure rich, privileged people to vote at higher rates. They more they succeed in doing so, the more demographic imbalance they create.
If I told typical democracy-loving political theorist that I had a magic wand which would make rich, privileged types vote at even higher rates, they wouldn't want to me to wave that wand. They'd say that I'm tilting democracy even more toward the rich and privileged. Yet their collective actions in pushing each other to vote have either no effect at all or the same effect. With few exceptions, they are only talking to other privileged people, so if they're successfully pushing anyone to vote, it's other privileged folks.
Perhaps a better thing to do, to help ensure the demographics of the actual voting electorate help match the demographics of the eligible electorate, is for rich college professor types to vote less and to discourage their rich, professional, white and Asian friends from voting. If you're a rich white college professor, your casting a vote is--at least from the standpoint of ensuring equal representation in the electorate--equivalent to taking away votes from a less privileged group. You abstaining is like giving that group more votes.
As a toy illustration, suppose there are 100 rich people and 100 poor people. Suppose in a typical year, 75% of rich people, but only 50% of poor people, turn out. On Election Day, we get 75 rich voters and 50 poor voters. You, the nice left-wing, Hannah Pitkin-quoting, small-d democrat wouldn't like that! But if ask people to vote, realistically, you're only interacting with other rich and privileged people similar to you. So, if you get one person to vote, you make the voting electorate 76 rich voters and 50 poor voters. Have you helped? Have you made democracy more or less representative? On the other hand, had you stayed home, you'd get 74 rich voters and 50 poor voters. You haven't solved the problem the overrepresentation of the rich and privileged, but at least you're reducing the intensity of that problem.
It gets worse when you consider that which candidates parties run, what platforms they run on, and so on, depend on the who the voters are and what they want. If they know the privileged turn out at higher rates--and they do know that--then they tailor their politics accordingly.
Are you sure you want to push your privileged friends to vote more? Do you think they know better than the unprivileged what's good for the unprivileged? Maybe all your democratic activism is doing is making democracy less representative and more biased toward the interests and opinions of privileged people like you.
You might respond: "Hey, maybe we rich privileged white folks what's good for the poor and underprivileged as much or more than they do, so it's cool for us to vote." But when I wrote Against Democracy, I argued that actually informed people know better than uninformed people, and you small d-democrat political theory-types got super pissed off and told me I had to be wrong because there's no such thing as right answers in politics. So I'd be careful asserting something like this, were I you.