You're voting to produce an outcome for real, concretely suffering people, so I think of it as strategic. I think I understand that you see it as an act of speech or communication, and it does also do that of course.

But you're voting in a way that has contributed to their suffering for several consecutive elections. Why do you keep expecting a different result?

Maybe think more, cause that ain't it. If I'm voting it's for someone who actually represents me, it isn't voting to win.

No one represents me perfectly. How do you choose? Should there be 300M candidates? 5?

I don't usually vote because the US isn't a democracy, but when I do it's for the party or person that most closely represents my very fringe ideals. As a result, I've never supported a winning candidate.

Not voting won't topple the government. Why not vote for the best option, given that one will win? Is the hope that they'll notice your nonparticipation and try to attract you?

Your best option is evil. That's why. You don't need any other reason.

Everything is evil, no? Every society that has ever existed has had its cruelties. That doesn't mean it doesn't matter/we just let it happen, but it does mean we have to concretely minimize them.

You're not minimizing evil by voting Dem or Rep. You're enabling monsters.

Here's the thing: not voting is not disabling them. They don't need quorum to form a government. It's symbolic.

It's not helping them, so I don't really care.