Voting for a candidate is not an indication of support for all of their policies - it’s an indication that you prefer their policies, taken as a whole, to those policies of the realistic opposition candidates, taken as a whole

OK, so in the event that there is no candidate that is absent a policy position that, hypothetically and personally, is so completely morally bankrupt that you cannot possibly support them, what are the available options? Because if protest is an option, but the government is under no obligation to listen to it, and voting third party and not voting is also not an option (because for whatever reason the second most likely option is end-of-times^tm^), it really sounds like that voter (or that group of voters) effectively have no choice. Not 'literally' (because literally they have choices that have no effect), effectively. It seems like to that voter and the group of voters that are in that situation are living under an autocracy lead by whatever party that provided those options as the only ones. They are effectively disenfranchised.

I would go on to say more about the popularity of dissent to that policy, but the way we measure popularity is so skewed by the above political situation that it's essentially begging the question.