First and foremost, I'm a voluntaryist, which means I am against politics in general because I believe human interaction should be voluntary, and politics is coercive by its nature. I don't support voting for politicians, as all it accomplishes is giving someone the power to control you. Even if one politician is substantially worse than another, every politician wants to be in charge of your life by passing arbitrary and flawed laws that will be imposed upon you, which is why it's a terrible idea to vote for any politician, no matter how good his or her intentions may seem.
As a response to this position, however, it is easy to claim that for the foreseeable future, politicians will still be running for office regardless of whether I vote or not, which begs the question "Since one of the politicians running is going to win anyway, who would you vote for?". My answer is still the same: no one, and I will elaborate as to why. A huge motivational factor as to why people vote is not because they're excited about the candidate and believe he or she will bring about positive change; it is because they dislike or are afraid of the other opponents more than whoever they are voting for. This was especially evident in the 2016 U.S. presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In an exit poll conducted by CNN, only 41% said they "strongly favored" their choice, while 32% felt mixed about their vote, and 25% voted just to try to keep the other candidate from winning, not necessarily because they liked who they voted for. In other words, the less people that vote, the less other people will feel the need to vote, which is the desired outcome.
If voting was mandatory, I would just write my name in as a protest vote if that was an option. If I had to choose between actual candidates, I would vote for whoever is proposing a budget that cuts military spending by the most, because I believe that branch of government commits the most evil compared to the rest. This doesn't necessarily mean voting for the candidate who proposes the lowest tax rate, as you can lower taxes overall but increase the amount of those taxes that goes towards the military. Until recently, I didn't give that fact much thought, so I was more sympathetic to conservatives as opposed to liberals, since conservatives generally advocate for lower taxes and less regulations. Before, my main concern was usually the economy, since the stronger the economy, the higher the standard of living will be. Then I realized that the mass murder that the U.S. military commits (along with other militaries) is immeasurably worse than slow economic growth, which made me become more sympathetic to progressives who prefer slashing the military budget, ending the pointless wars the U.S. is in, and that more of the taxes go back to the people in the form of programs like Medicare For All and free tuition.
To be clear, I do not support progressives, conservatives, or any other political group or party. I view taxes as extortion, regardless of where that tax money goes. Again, my philosophy regarding politics is simple: the concept itself is illegitimate, because no one has the right to rule over another.
I wholeheartedly reject the idea of voting for "the lesser evil" (unless it's to avoid unfair punishment for not voting) because evil is still evil, and the choice is clear: you can either participate in that evil by engaging in the political process, or you can refuse to participate in it. If you ask me "What if one candidate will cause WW3 and the other candidate wants to withdraw troops?", I would say that the issue is people believing that an institution which causes war (government) is legitimate. Once people understand why the concept of government is illegitimate (governments are ruling classes which force you against your will), they will stop complying with many of the bogus orders and laws that are mostly meant to increase and cement the power of those in government. This would result in less people signing up to join the military and paying taxes. You can't have a war without soldiers fighting in it, or without the taxes to fund it. Not to mention that voting for the "lesser evil" doesn't guarantee he or she will win, and by voting, you're consenting to the system by participating in it, meaning that you agree to abide by the laws and orders of whoever wins, even if it's not your preferred candidate.
The only meaningful solution is for people to give up their belief in political authority, so that they stop carrying out and going along with evil and destructive laws. Here are some other articles that go more in-depth into what I've discussed:
https://steemit.com/politics/@anarvol/democracy-does-not-make-a-government-legitimate-nothing-does