Honestly this view over the long term leads to the worst outcome for everyone, especially when adopted my any number of people.
Possibly the best outcome is getting enough people that would elect politicians that would enact new voting systems like ranked choice and move away from a two party system that will eventually collapse this country in extremism. Just don't blindly and willingly accept that the two party system is the only choice. And do not let an objectively evil person win because you want to remain neutral, cause your neutrality is gone if they get elected.
But this individual does not have control over any number of people, only their own vote. And the effect of a single vote is provably negligible in almost every election in history. So lecturing them about what a group can accomplish with cooperative action is pointless, and assigning "group blame" to them seems unethical to me. The tragedy of the commons for a large number of people often leaves us with no one to assign a significant amount of blame. This is just a sad fact.
>But this individual does not have control over any number of people,
What do you mean by control? I mean if you mean "They don't point a gun at people and tell them how to vote" then few people do (see Russia for an example of that). If instead you mean "They get on social media and tell people not to vote" then they have some control in the form of advertising. You have no idea what they are in charge of and any assignment of blame.
Back in the day, when homosexuality was discussed in fora not frequented by distinguished intellectuals, one of the points presented by "traditionalists" against the social acceptance and spread of homosexuality was that if everyone were homosexual, the human species would come to an end. But we have seen that people continue to have heterogeneous sexual desires, and our science and technology have both advanced. It is very rare that there is a need, in the "discourse" or in the practice, for a "but what if everyone did this" gotcha.
I think the call to vote because otherwise this wins, that loses, is similar in spirit to the fallacious attempt to use some sort of big-society framework to "stop homosexuality."
I think the act of voting is one of the ways in which someone can contribute to society. Other ways are, for example, offering a smile, money or physical help, depending on the situation, to others in a time of need; it is perhaps contributing to the education of the disadvantaged; it is being a good citizen; and many other contributions are possible. It is not necessary to do everything all the time.
If "everyone did what I did" is just another form of game theory, but then at least "lesser evil 2.0 - I'm slightly better than hitler" would win with 0.0001% of the vote or something.
Possibly the best outcome is getting enough people that would elect politicians that would enact new voting systems like ranked choice and move away from a two party system that will eventually collapse this country in extremism. Just don't blindly and willingly accept that the two party system is the only choice. And do not let an objectively evil person win because you want to remain neutral, cause your neutrality is gone if they get elected.