} Why is it that I have to vote? 
> Well if you don't vote, then you can't complain. 
} Oh. So my ability to exercise ownership of my own mouth is rescinded if I don't vote? 
> No, what I meant was that if you don't vote, then you shouldn't complain. 
} Why shouldn't I complain? Will there be nothing to complain about? 
> Well, it's clearly obvious that you shouldn't complain about the state of things because you didn't try to make them better. 
} But none of the options on the ballot would have made the state of things better. 
> Oh that's so cynical. 
} And in addition to being cynical it is also true. 
> But what about the candidate for party X? He would have made things better. 
} Statistically, about 50% of your countrymen believe just the opposite. Why should I believe you and not them? 
> Because they do not understand the true nature of things as well as myself. 
} Would the candidate of party X enable or cause them to better understand the true nature of things? 
> Probably not, most all of them are beyond help. 
} Do you think that most of your countryman belonging to party Y would have the same assessment of you? 
> Undoubtedly. 
} Well then there are 4 possibilities. (1) Neither adherents of party X or party Y understand the true nature of things, (2) Party X adherents understand the true nature of things, (3) Party Y adherents understand the true nature of things, (4) Adherents of both party X and party Y understand the true nature of things. 
} Now (4) is mutually exclusive, so it's possibility of being true is 0.0. Based on your argument, (2) and (3) can only be true for about half the population at a time, so both have a possibility probability of 0.5. If (1) were true it would account for both your position and the position of an adherent of party Y equally well, so its possibility is 1.0. So, the most probable scenario is that neither adherents of party X or party Y understand the true nature of things. 
> You're hopelessly unpatriotic. You must secretly support the candidate of party Y. 


Post mortem: There is no such metric as possibility of being true, or possibility probability. So it is not necessary that proposition (1) is more likely to be true vs. proposition (2) or (3) (although it is necessary that proposition (4) is false).  In fact, the whole scenario is pretty facetious since any conclusion about a heterogenous aggregate may well have a low probability of being accurate about any individual unit of the group. However, all is not lost since any argument that the candidate for party X, when X is Republican or Democrat, would be quickly lost so long as logic is employed. Which leaves, of course, only proposition (1) as a viable conclusion.