I've often wondered why people consider a throw-away vote (voting for a candidate you know has no chance to win) participating in the system and laudable, but not voting at all is some horrible evil. In both cases, you know your vote or lack of same will have the same effect on the outcome : none.
I do understand wanting as many people as possible to participate in the electoral process. The problem is that, based on our history, when it comes to presidential elections that participation only means something when voting for a Dem or Rep (minus a few exceptions).
If I want neither the Dem nor Rep candidate to be elected and don't see either as a 'lesser of two evils', am I really doing anything by writing in, say, the name of a neighbor who I consider the best-suited person for president I know, but that no one outside my community has ever heard of, that is different than not voting at all? Sure, I can say, "I voted!" but what was the point? I knew my vote would have as much effect on the outcome of the election as if I had not voted at all.
I understand G.T.'s feelings completely. I do not see much measurable difference between the two parties. Sure, there's plenty of rhetoric and pandering, but in practice, Dem or Rep seems to make little real difference. Maybe if there were a viable independent candidate to vote for, things would look different, but as far as I can see there is not. Rather than picking the lesser of two evils, for some of us at least, it is more a matter of picking a flavor of equal evils.