[JohnMakin]

This is extremely lazy and unrigorous reasoning that could be extended dishonestly to any number of things. Oh, you aren't protesting genocides? You must support them then. Oh, you're not helping feed hungry people in poor countries? Guess you support child starvation. Oh, you're not contributing to the Rust ecosystem? ...............

[lotsofpulp]

None of those are comparable to the simple and quick act of voting against a treasonous candidate for US president.

This wasn’t a bad candidate vs worse candidate situation, it was someone who supports breaking apart the trust and foundation of the country solely for personal gain versus someone who at least believed in providing a veneer of civility.

[JohnMakin]

signing an online petition is also a quick act, and the same reasoning you’re using would follow. you’re almost getting at what’s wrong with your specific voter argument though - in many, many states, 1 or more of the following can apply:

big states that always vote one way like CA where a non vote is the same as a blue vote

states where voting is such a tedious process that opting out is a reasonable choice, even if it doesnt place a big burden otherwise

states with voter id laws, often large chunks of the eligible population do not have an id

disabled people, people with hardship, etc., felons

It’s really weird logic to lump massive chunks of the general population these things apply to in with the same people that explicitly support this. It also ignores the fact that these elections often come down to a few thousand or fewer votes in a handful of battleground states. Not voting in those places, I would tend to agree more with the gist of your point, but it is no where near a big chunk of the population.