If you aren't comfortable with the set of options, actively work to improve the set of options to one you are more comfortable with in the future. But, today, do the best with the options you have.
If you are paying taxes you are paying for this system, by not voting, you are simply having money stolen from you to have other people do as they see fit.
pretending that your abstainment from voting is somehow going to do anything but give ignorant people more power is senseless for anyone who understands how business/government works.
You are though, mate. You don't have a choice in the matter.
In Soviet Union, party crush people like me since hurts lie that all support them.
If all the choices on offer are so bad that you can’t choose a candidate to vote against then write in a candidate. In my experience it is very rare that both candidates are equally bad and you can’t choose the least worst option.
And I can't name a single person I want to associate my name with by voting for them.
I'd much rather not have my vote counted then vote for someone I despise. "Hmm, 10% voter turnout. Something must be wrong."
Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent.
Empirically, low turnout as a signal that something is wrong which provokes some kind of change to correct it doesn't work very well.
> Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent.
Encouraging people to not vote because eventually that will signal that something is wrong and produce positive change is a lot worse.
Vote-for-one voting is still a ranked-preference method, its just one with only two ranks, and a restriction that only one candidate can be put in the first rank. It provides some (though often less than you'd like) input into social decisionmaking.
Abstention, in any voting system, is simply expressing absolute indifference between the available options -- it doesn't mean that you dislike them all, you could just like them all equally. It provides no useful signal into social decisionmaking. If you are actually indifferent, that's fine, but signaling indifference when what you really want to say is that you are not indifferent, but also not happy with your choices, is probably not what you want.
If you don't like the choices you get at general elections, there are ways to signal that that are far more effective than not voting. (The weakest and most basic of which is voting in primary elections or whatever the equivalent is.)
The alternative is the worse candidate get half your vote. If you really are indifferent to which ever candidate wins (i.e. they are both equally bad) then don’t vote. If you do think one is worse than the other then you need to vote to express this opinion.
No it isn't.
No it's not. You are stupid.