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.

Yeah nah mate. You have the right to not vote. But if you choose to exercise this right you don’t get to whinge about the person elected by those who did vote.

Society is not composed of you and you alone. It is composed of many. You took yourself outta this decision but it’s still being made freely by everyone else and no, it doesn’t impinge on you to accept the democratic consensus of the many

I understand that I’m living in an oppressive system enforced by violence and that my life is shaped at the threat of state violence. you don’t need to reiterate that to me. It’s why I’m not legitimizing it by participating in this farce of “democracy” and instead dedicate my life to changing it.

Whichever puppet is on top doesn’t change all that whatsoever. Nor will your platitudes about be “accepting the democratic consensus of the many” when I don’t have the alternative due to said violence.