The analogy that I came up with is to think of voting candidates as making consumption decisions in the market. Suppose I am going to the market to buy ketchup. There are a variety of choices for ketchup brands. Let’s say brand A and B are on sale and they are located at the most noticeable place on the aisle. However, I have my favorite brand called C and it is not on sale. I am not in favor of either brand A or B because the company that owns brand A, though the product tastes okay, it recently had a food safety scandal while company B doesn’t taste good.
Brand A and B are like the two most winnable candidates in the voting process. They are popular, trendy, seemingly the best options given the fact that they are on sale. However, they both have their shortcomings for me, as a customer who makes the decision.
Therefore, the reason for me not thinking people have a moral obligation to vote or vote for the less evil is similar to my ketchup consumption choice. I can either stick with my favorite brand no matter how high the price is, in which case, vote for the candidate that I truly support. Or, I can just decide not to purchase the product and wait until next time, when my favorite brand is on sale, in which case I only make my voting decisions when my ideal candidate is having the chance to win.