No one is entitled to your vote and the ideology surrounding such thinking is painted with the same partisan thinking that progressives decry
Voting against the other guy makes sense if the issues that are at your core are highly polarized against the two candidates. Take Joe Schmidt, an average American voter who's biggest issue is Abortion rights (he is Pro-Choice), Environmental Rights (Pro-Environment), and Gun Rights (Pro-2A). In the case of Donald Trump vs Biden, he has to weigh each issue as what is more important to him. Though he is pro second amendment, the issues of environmentalism and abortion rights supersede his stance on gun control, and he would be willing to sacrifice some of his other stances to satisfy his clear choice vote.
Now, what happens if none of those are your core issues? What happens if your core issues are, say, the war in the Middle East? What if you take the stance that America, through its imperialist global crusade, has not only ineffectually dealt with insurgent uprisings but has in fact armed them, given them an ideology to fight against, and made issues worse? I do not think this is a very far-fetch'd stance, it is after all the primary motivation behind supporting Palestine, for example. What is the foreign policy difference there between Donald Trump and Joe Biden?
What if your stance that is core to your interests is eliminating money-backed politics? Say Joe Schmidt sees lobbyist interest groups and reliance on funding as just a way for the rich and powerful to exert undue influence on legislature? What if the reason Joe Schmidt most dislikes Donald Trump because he brazenly currys favor with politicians through bribes, or has other countries do the same thing (like Saudi Arabia)? What is the foreign policy difference there between Donald Trump and Joe Biden?
If your biggest issue is not the big ticket ballot option of abortion, or gun rights, or some other partisan issue then they are not entitled to have your vote. A person votes most within their interests. Any form of altruism, 'empathy for a cause,' is in itself a means for one to stroke their ego and maintain moral superiority, for voting on the "right side." I don't see how one can decry the two-party system, calling it unfortunate, but then say that is necessary and one should participate in it. All that does is send signals to those parties that exactly what they were doing (re: nothing) is exactly what is needed to turn out votes, and all they have to do is continually cry that "other guy" will ruin the entire American foundation. This has been the past two decades or so of American politics at least. For someone to earn my vote they have to speak on issues that I care about.
I've seen some truly horrendous partisan backing. People claiming that Trump is the antichrist, people claiming that, well Biden might be a rapist but at least raped less women than Trump, all sorts of mannerisms to justify partisan thinking. Those people, the ones who claim vote blue no matter who, who claim voter entitlement, who claim that all Democrats are liberal baby killing devils, whatever, there is no difference to them. They are not attempting to understand ideology behind political philosophies, they have become so entrenched in "other guy bad my guy good" that they are being led along with bread and circus so no effectual change happens.
I'm not gonna vote for someone just because they pay lip service by jumping on reparations to secure the black vote, or decide that all of a sudden they are pro LGBT (despite decades of activism against), or say that x person is ruining America. I'll vote for someone if their positions speak to me, because it is only when attention is given to a behavior that the behavior repeats