I mean so lesser evil voting is generally a good strategy for damage control, but it's not necessarily a great strategy in terms of like, blanket things you can just effect to the whole. If you take a voter in a non-swing state, say, california, a state that votes very consistently, them defecting their vote to a third party which represents them more accurately, is going to be of much lesser weight in totality than if someone in a swing state had done so. They are probably much safer in their estimation of walking up towards the line without crossing it. This is probably also true of states who get their votes tallied up later on, and also of states where projections are already in favor of certain candidates, since those projections affect elections.

This also kind of discounts "not voting" as an electoral strategy because that doesn't send a super clear signal, but it's probably not the worst thing in the world, since we could kind of file them away under like, either the average non-voter's position in their state, or just the average non-voter's position at large, which is probably going to be more radical of an average position than most would think.

But yeah, all of this still tracks with what you're saying so far. I think the biggest determining factor for me, though, is that electoralism as a strategy at all hinges on the assumption that democrats would rather move left than lose to republicans. And I dunno, that's kind of a tenuous assumption, and I think is the major disagreement on people who are willing to engage in electoralism vs those who aren't, is that most people who aren't, assume that the democrats would rather lose to republicans and ensure a status quo/backslide into fascism rather than move to the left.