Take for example the (often liberal) sentiment of "I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils". There is no consequentialist argument for this. Perhaps if you in an organised block of citizens threaten to hold your vote in order to influence policy, but as a purely individualist act a consequentialist would argue your goal is to achieve the most ethical outcome.

I find this sentiment condescending, this assumption that choosing not to vote is a disorganised individualist act.

Neat drawings and all, but I didn't get the connection between guy at the office to lesser evilism to fascism. I find it contradictory when he continues:

And it can be kind of baffling to assert that when bad things happen, maybe we should do something about it, but you just can't take for granted that when someone agrees that something is bad, they're agreeing it's a problem.

Clearly, he is suggesting that we vote for someone who is admittedly evil but how is that doing something against the problem of an electoral system that only offers you a choice between a few evil people?