Your idea is an automatic failure, though.
No party cares about non-voters.
Parties and politicians care very much if you vote AGAINST them.
But not voting at all?
LOL, has been their response for as long as voting has ever existed, anywhere, and you ain't gonna change that.
EDIT: this has nothing to do with Party efforts to recruit new voters. I'm talking about Party attitudes towards people who simply do not and will not vote at all. LOL!! along with eyerolls and headshakes has been their response to that all throughout history, and I see no reason to believe it will change.
I will step in here to remind you that your vote is your endorsement. That is all it can ever be. By definition.
So 'voting against' is bullcrap. You can only vote *for*.
Your politician will not reckon your vote as a vote against his opponent, but only as a vote *for* him.
To couch it otherwise is error.
So you are in effect and in practice voting for MORE damage to liberty and to treasure when you vote for Tumpy... Because that is his record, and that is his veiled promise - veiled in that he still believes he did the right thing wrt pandemic and vax, So he'd do the same thing again. And veiled in his enthusiasm for trillions of dollars invested in 'freedom cities'.
You can't go in thinking you'll get something different than he already has done on the record.
So you'll throw the libertarians and the fiscal conservatives under the bus.
And if you win that way, don't expect either to be resurrected. Ever. You done run them over.
As for me... I will NOT vote against libertarians and fiscal conservatives. I will not endorse a candidate that treated them so very poorly. I will heed their cry. I will follow with them.
And that means I will not, cannot endorse Tumpy.