I voted for John McAfee twice in Orlando, Florida, because he was the only candidate running for president in 2016 who did not want to be my master, and whose platform consisted purely of reducing illegitimate government power, and in no way expanding even that government power which a theoretical legitimate government could rightfully claim. Had there been a candidate on the ballot in November that was sufficiently voluntaryist, I would have voted for him and championed him.

I also pointed out that strategic voting for the lesser of multiple evils is, indeed, legitimate, but only when the gain is sufficiently large, and the evil is tolerable. Because I draw the line at government stealing people's houses(as Trump attempted to do to Vera Coking) and murdering people(as the gun laws championed by Hillary Clinton have actually accomplished, many times) I would say that a vote for either major party candidate was a stain on one's moral character.

A case could be made that the same is true of those who voted for "less evil" candidates whose violations of individual rights would likely be grudging, or perpetrated by their incomprehension of the nature of the government they had unwittingly joined (Johnson, de la Fuente, Castle) or by possession of an inherently flawed, evil, and impractical philosophy(Stein, Sanders) derived from philosophical and economic incomprehension.

Regardless, voting for active immorality on a large scale is never defensible, and that's a core feature of the democracy that was once taught to our school children in this country, prior to the government taking control of schooling and eliminating proper History, Economics, Law, and Philosophy (the essential-to-civil-society portions of which were once taught in a course frequently named "Civics").

In any case, to hell with the people who are so abjectly stupid that they wanted you to vote for murder and property-rights-violation. If you politely explained yourself to them in this manner, and they rejected your explanation, you could politely call them immoral "murderers-by-proxy" and "government-theft-advocates."

I've found that doing so really gets under their skin, because they cannot claim that you aren't right, reasonable, and "as polite as warranted."