calling every party corrupt is a common misconception, specially when there's parties that have never held any power to be corrupted anyway, so it's very unlikely all parties are corrupt, there's always some choice you can vote on, even if you vote blank is a better choice than not voting.
I do not call every party corrupt, it was an example of a situation where you might have the moral obligation of not voting.
I live in Sweden where all parties are corrupt, which makes it valid in that country. Other nations differ.
A blank vote is also an option in a nation that counts blank votes and publish them in the final result. Many nations don't, Sweden for instance, so your blank vote is just as wasted as if you stayed at home. Which was the reason I mentioned the "none of the above" vote. In practice a blank vote, but one that states more clearly the voter's wish to get rid of the political nomenclatura of the ruling elite.
Then, of course you have the states with barriers against small parties, where you have to have 4 or 5 % of the vote to get any seat at all. Also a pretty good way of ensuring that new political alternatives outside of the establishmant is kept out of parliament, since very few voters will risk "throwing away" a vote on a party that is so small "it will never get into parliament anyway".
When things are narrowed down to a vote for precidency, there are very few candidates to choose from. In European type of nations, perhaps thre or even four candidates may have a theoretical chance, but in nations like the US only two candidates will have a chance at the final run. How many Americans does not want any of the two final runners in a given year?
