The analogy kind of falls apart since she is not limited to this guy and Chad. She’s free to choose nothing at all. With Trump vs Biden, there’s no viable third option, and having no president is not one of the options. So the “Trump is worse” argument becomes viable simply because you do have to choose one of them.

Continue with that analogy. What would happen if that woman had no other option. Should she choose the nice guy, the chad or object to the choice being fostered upon her and choose nobody? And if she’s paired anyway with that person, should she then act as if it was her choice, or take actions to disengage from that person and destroy the system that caused these turn of events?

You can tactically vote for Biden to avoid Trump and still take actions to dismantle the system.

So the woman in our scenario should decide to choose the “Nice Guy” tactically?

No, I’m saying that your analogy breaks down.

I don’t think it does. A choice fostered upon me at the threat of violence is not a choice at all. I refuse to participate and therefore legitimize such a farce.

You can refuse to vote but you're still going to end up with one of those two as your president. Are you OK with not having a say about which one it ends up being just to make a point to nobody in particular?