If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.
Is a piece of knowledge most working class people come to with reasonable rapidity. For the more political left-wing version, see Bump me into Parliament. "Politicians are all the same," seems to be phrased in a class sense to me, which means that people are broadly aware that the boss class (to use the term corresponding to Bump me) control both sides of parliament.
These systems of knowledge about the function of parliament seem to be better informed than attending to the minutae of either side of the house, neither of which represents the economic interests in work of the majority of voters. Unless an elector feels strongly on a social issue that culturally divides the boss class and is in play, abortion for instance in the United States, attending to electoral politics is probably a waste of time.
The two exceptions, of a functioning party for labour and the concept of a "tribune of the people" in parliament are worth dealing with. (cf: Labourism, Leninism).
I'm not sure the first exists anywhere anymore, and, even when it did the conduct of labour parties in parliament was so amenable to the interests of the boss class that the party of labour may as well have been the less Tory bosses' party. Instances where labour parties acted otherwise involved extra-parliamentary discipline. The limits of parliamentary politics are the limits of 1789 liberalism. Exceed those limits at peril of in-flight ejection from helicopters.1 Which essentially is the point that making demands in deep favour of labour in parliament result in the abolition of parliament as we know it. There is no way to make a Chartist demand without physical force. Moral force is not merely insufficient, but making a claim with moral force in parliament will result in the dissolution of parliament.
Regarding the tribune of the people conception of getting one good leftie elected to parliament, this is a marginal case. You might see it happening with dedicated and excellent parliamentary individuals, Australian Greens in Senate Estimates is a current example, but it obviously hasn't out-weighed the general popular sentiment on the worthlessness of parliament. Moreover, when there isn't a tight duopoly of power, this situation emerges from the activity of those too stupid to not pay attention to parliament. It still isn't an adequate reason to pay attention to parliamentary politics.
The question then is if not in parliament, then where do real politics lie?
The "left" answer from Bump me is in industrial organisation for social change. There's a reasonable case here, particularly in states like Britain or Australia where wage determination and conditions of labour were highly politicised for a long period of time, and the politicisation had deep system wide effects such as the general wage level, return to labour, and a proxy of power stronger than parliamentary votes. (The Tories never attempted to abolish the NHS, for example).
Another answer, popular since the mid-1960s with well paid white collar left-wing workers is in social movements: I am not convinced of the efficacy of this, since they go begging to parliament for liberal laws. The other problem with these claims as a "real" politics for the majority of people is that many, if not most, of the social movement's claims are in the general form put amenable to the boss class. They're usually advocated by the less Tory party in parliament anyway. In the form they're implemented they reinforce the existing structures of social power. At their best these movements do cohere a power in ordinary people's lives. That is a politics.
On the right, I've heard one argument put that the right of the working classes' real politics exist in an imaginary moral economy. "Imaginary" here means a shared belief, it isn't pejorative, but describes more a systematic reinterpretation of daily life giving it meaning. "Moral economy" meaning an ordering of economic life that is centred on an idea of how people ought to live, rather than "political economy" which is much more about to what extent can one reduce another's living. This is a persuasive argument, but I'm not yet convinced here.
1 See, for example, a non-Marxist socialist account of the revolution, liberalism, and the liberal political institution being restricted to private property in David W. Lovell. "The French Revolution and the Origins of Socialism: the case of early French Socialism." French History (1992) 6 (2): 185-205 doi:10.1093/fh/6.2.185; or in real property, David Hunt, "Peasant movements and communal property during the French Revolution," Theory and Society (1988) 17 (2): 255-283; or in intellectual property Carla Hesse, "Enlightenment Epistemology and the Laws of Authorship in Revolutionary France, 1777-1793" Representations (1990) 30 Special Issue: Law and the Order of Culture, 109-137. The claim that the limits of the parliamentary are restricted to private property; and so that parliamentary politics can only be a politics of private property is commonplace.
It is particularly notable in Lenin, "The reason why [Capitalists] can do nothing about [workers' growing resentment] is because private property is most strictly safeguarded, is “sacred” there. […] Nothing can be achieved by isolated strikes, the parliamentary struggle, or the vote, because “private property is sacred”, and the capitalists have accumulated such debts that the whole world is in bondage to a handful of men." (Lenin, "Report On The International Situation And The Fundamental Tasks Of The Communist International July 19" The Second Congress Of The Communist International July 19-August 7, 1920 Marxists.org 2002 following the Progress Collected 4th English ( http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x03.htm#fw01 )).