Yes, the argument does still stand, because it is the categorical definition of an argument - trying to persuade someone (YOU) with reasons (NOT VOTING ROMNEY) to accept a certain conclusion (WILL ENSURE A ZERO WIN). Seems simple enough.
You mistake my emotional appeal for you to change your course of action as a philosophical appeal to your logical motive, which, semantically speaking, is an entirely different thing.
And try not to miss the forest for the trees here... I said you’re “giving” your vote to Obama, not voting for him literally, i.e. if you sit at home or vote third-party candidate, Obama-voters will have no need to negate your nonexistent Romney vote for a Zero win. So, you’ll have in effect aided and abetted in a Democrat victory.
Okay, now we’re done here.
With language like that, you've come dangerously close to wilfully mischaracterizing a free exercise of the franchise as a criminal activity.
That said, a false dichotomy is always a spurious appeal, a fallacy -- and therefore, not an argument, but appeal to motive rather than logic. Accusing people of criminality into the bargain shows how far over the line you are.
NOW we're done.