It's a small level of harm reduction. It is not a substitute for direct action. But it is necessary if you care about reducing any kind of harm in the world no matter how small.
Direct action may include activities, often nonviolent but possibly violent, targeting people, groups, institutions, actions, or property that its participants deem objectionable. Nonviolent direct action may include civil disobedience, sit-ins, strikes, and counter-economics. Violent direct action may include political violence, assault, arson, sabotage, and property destruction.
So on one hand, they're right. Direct Action is not done at the ballot box. It's done in the streets.
But on the other...it doesn't matter. Just like most "well akshaully" statements!
Because people should do everything you've laid out, regardless. And don't forget to vote!
While I think it's important to vote, the user you are replying to is mostly correct. It's just important to understand that "direct action" isn't the only viable domain of activism or civil engagement.