You didn't vote. So, the better candidate (for whom you could have voted) wasn't voted into the office. So, the worse candidate was voted into the office. You are responsible for the election of a bad candidate.
q.e.d.
Note 1: I know, analyzing quotes is useless, but I couldn't resist.
Note 2: If there are only bad candidates the situation is more complex, but this is an edge case which only happens in thought experiments.
I don't agree that having only bad candidates is "an edge case which only happens in thought experiments". It's easy to get blinded by the all-to-common sports team approach to party politics (My team good! Other team bad!), but issue for issue, there just isn't any appreciable difference in the candidates.
So what is the "key difference" between the parties? Rhetoric. When Republicans advocate a small contraction of the welfare state, Democrats claim that Republicans totally oppose the welfare state. And many Republicans oblige them by standing up for "liberty" and "responsibility." Similarly, when Democrats advocate a small expansion in the welfare state, Republican claim that Democrats oppose free markets. And many Democrats oblige them by saying things like "markets only benefit the rich."
This rhetorical illusion is so powerful that when a Democrat like Clinton adopts many pro-market reforms, Republicans still hate him as a 60s radical. And when Bush II sharply expands the welfare state, Democrats still hate him as a billionaire's lackey.
Hypothetically - All candidates disgust me and have abhorent views contrary to my fundamental views on human rights, ethics, privacy etc.
What now? One of them may agree with me on a single, small issue, the other doesn't. But how can I vote for that guy if I know that he's going to continue eroding everything I stand for on every other issue?
One of them may agree with me on a single, small issue, the other doesn't.
The other?
There are more than two candidates.
Even if a 3rd (or 4th or fifth) party candidate doesn't have a chance of wining, a better showing in the election makes it, at least somewhat, easier for such parties to get press coverage and admission to national debates in the future.
This goes directly against the advice I responded to though - that if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils you are directly responsible for the greater of the two getting in.
I disagree with that stance. It appears you do as well.
>"If there are only bad candidates the situation is more complex, but this is an edge case which only happens in thought experiments"
I think you and I have differing opinions about the candidates. What do you consider "good"? Has there even been a "good" candidate in the past 20, 30 years?
I am not from the US, so I have to draw my "Sorry, I don't know" card here, but I really cannot believe that there were only bad candidates - It isn't impossible, but without proof it seems highly unlikely, i.e. an edge case.
Extreme variations are more likely the smaller your sample size is, considering America has a two party system they have a very small sample size causing it to be prone to extreme variation. Examples: No women candidate, no candidate that is not a politician, no candidate that favors alternate economic models, etc etc. This makes no "good" candidates according to a particular individual's view highly likely.
You didn't vote. So, the better candidate (for whom you could have voted) wasn't voted into the office. So, the worse candidate was voted into the office. You are responsible for the election of a bad candidate.
q.e.d.
Note 1: I know, analyzing quotes is useless, but I couldn't resist. Note 2: If there are only bad candidates the situation is more complex, but this is an edge case which only happens in thought experiments.