Evil wins when good people do nothing.
Not voting at all is not actually a very effective form of protest. It's just one less vote for the least evil.
Or for that one guy who wanted election reform. Vote for him. He said we would resign once the reforms were in place. Power hungry my ass.
I didn't say I wasn't voting, I said I was voting for None of the Above. Which has precisely the same electoral chances as any other third-party option -- ZERO.
Sanders seems to be the least morally reprehensible option, but not necessarily the best option or the most pragmatic. Bernie's got some good ideas and but he's got some cray-cray ones too. And let's be real here -- he ain't gonna win the nomination. It's gonna be Hillary vs. whoever bubbles out of the froth of madness that is the Republican Party, which at this stage in the game still looks like Trump.
Hillary would seem to be the better option regardless (other than maybe Kasich, but he's not going to win), but I fear that she will be such a self-fulfilling comic villain parody of "liberalism" that her successor will almost certainly be a Republican, and probably not even a good one. It's sorta like how Bush was such a clusterfuck that we were kinda ready to elect ANY Democrat. I don't think Hillary would be ineffective by any means, but I think she would alienate big swaths of the electorate and pursue heavy-handed policies that would cement the notion of Democrats as the party of the police state and actually give Republicans some claim to being "the party of freedom".