+1
I would add those that didn't vote are just as to blame for the distructive candidate that wins.
It is a great idea at first view, but runs into problems with conscience and consent.
For example, let me invent two candidates for prez: Senator Pander, Republican from Bankerhaven, New York; and, Governor Demagogue, Democrat from Youpay, California.
The first is an insider, guaranteed to increase the national debt, while signing off on things like additions to the unPatriot Act, working with rent-seeking* industry lobbyists, etc, etc.
The second is a professional politician who wants to be more of an insider while increasing taxes, giving favors to unions in return for contributions, figuring out how to sell the latest accounting gimmick for social security, etc., etc.
Now, along comes our hapless voter who we're going to blame if he doesn't for one or the other.
But, what if he knows enough about politicians and the parties to honestly believe that both candidates are really bad for freedom, the economy, and the constitution? Meaning, he can't possibly vote for either as a matter of conscience?
And, what if he does not consent to subjecting himself to the numerous unconstitutional and entirely predictable behaviors of either of them?
And, what if he is sufficiently concerned about his fellows that he refuses to afflict his fellow Americans with either one?
Can we really blame him for not voting?
*A rent-seeker is someone who seeks privilege or advantage from government. For example, an agri-business giant lobbys congress for an amendment to patent laws making it illegal for farmer Jones to save seed if his crop was cross-pollinated from a patented crop in the adjacent field of another farmer. Or, the cop union goes to the state legislature seeking a cap on damages against a police department. Or,...etc., etc. Somebody seeking advantage from government is a rent-seeker.