"The greater good of others" is a non-argument. "Others" can be trusted to look after their own greater good. They do not get to determine my moral position. If my conscience dictates that I support some minor party, then I do so. If my conscience dictates that I not vote, then I don't vote. That is the way it will always be, until the day voting is made compulsory -- and on that day, I'll lead the local militia in a full-scale assault on whatever state installation is handiest.
There are frequently exceedingly good reasons for not voting. I will not reward a man I regard as morally reprehensible with my support for public office -- which is what the vote is. If you think it's "the lesser of two evils," or some equivalent nonsense, you need to check your premises; there is no gain to be had by supporting evil. When all contestants align themselves with evil, the sole remaining alternative for a good man is to abstain from voting, so as to refrain from endorsing the legitimacy of a wholly evil set of alternatives with his ballot.
Whatever your relatives were wounded for, it wasn't the vote. The vote is the least excrescence on the true purpose of the Republic: "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." If I feel not voting, or voting for some minor party, is the best route toward that, then that's what I'll do -- and on the way I'll be pitying you benighted fools who tell yourselves that you simply have to vote for a Republican (or a Democrat; let's at least admit the outside possibility) because he's "the lesser of two evils." Not only do you put your moral position in hock to some party's promise to look after your interests, in defiance of all history on the subject; you also ask to be shafted by the very candidate you support, by providing him evidence that, as long as the alternatives look even worse, he can count on your vote.
Not smart. Very not smart.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com