I'm not arguing that voters must do anything. I'm saying that there are two possible outcomes on November 6th, and that to pretend otherwise - to pretend that your vote, or lack of vote, or protest vote, or whatever else leads to anything but one of those two possible outcomes is a fantasy. All of the work to change the options happens before the vote, not during it.

And no, your ludicrous example doesn't change that.

The example isn't ludicrous, it's playing out the worst case and asking whether you still believe that voters must choose to support what they see as the least bad option.

You literally said that voters should pick which of the two options seem best. So again, if given the choice of Hitler and Himmler should voters be held to that standard? If not, is it reasonable for voters to disagree with the vote and choose not to be party to it?

I totally agree with you here. I would support almost any Congressional candidate that I believe to honestly want to push through a change in this direction to our electoral system. For now I just don't see Congress actually considering such a fundamental change to our electoral system, its rare enough that they pass a budget on time.

I have sometimes voted write-in for fictional characters, in races where all the candidates really are just that bad.

For president specifically, I usually vote for the least obnoxious or most amusing third party.

I'm not totally familiar with Himmler's exact beliefs and plans - but if say, he was almost as bad but not quite as bad as Hitler, then I would certainly be voting for him instead of Hitler. I would hope every other voter did the same. I can understand if someone wasn't able to actually tell the difference between such awful candidates - but aside from that, it seems illogical not to vote in the lesser of two evils.

If neither option is acceptable, you should be doing a lot more than boycotting the vote. Anyway, extreme hypotheticals are distractions.