He might not live that long...

I don't know the future, depends a lot on the environment. But if you're in a general election with two viable choices, one is a pro-corporate pro-democracy candiate and the other a pro-corporate anti-democracy candidate, then objectively speaking, if you want to save democracy you have to vote the first choice.

By "viable" I mean someone you know people will vote enough to be able to take on the candidate who does the most damage. I'm sorry but a Jill Stein like figure who only pops up in election years with the stated goal of siphoning votes from the less horrible candidate, that's not what I'd call viable. They could be if they fought for ranked choice voting — then there would be no concern of siphoning votes.

General elections aren't so much about fixing everything then and there, they're more about maintaining the environment necessary for changes to happen via public pressure, activism, protests, direct action, even future elections (all of which are way more precarious now that the greater evil won).

People make voting in the general seem like such a heroic act of defiance to "reject the duopoly", but that's just an aestheticization of politics, a way for people to say a visceral "fuck you" to the system while fucking themselves too and getting nothing in return except schadenfreude. Making voting into an identity is peak liberal virtue signaling (even when leftists do it, even when MAGA does it), and it's costing us everything.