The links I have cited have addressed the rest of your response in sufficient depth IMO. What I really find irritating is this suggestion:

The only reason you wouldn’t want marginally better is if you’re hoping for things to get worse, like an accelerationist.

I fractally reject this statement:

• I absolutely do hope for things to get marginally better (as a weak case of “much better”). I am not in the business of causing chaos for its own sake (“Anarchy is order”).
• I am not an accelerationist, and neither are any anarchists worth their salt. I reject that epithet, and the suggestion that I want things to get worse.
• I reject the notion that voting is a “lever of praxis” at all, except in rare cases of local elections (but even then, the person I vote for is more likely to be “made useful” to the State than to radically stand for their voters).
• I reject the notion that voting for the “least worst” figurehead has any impact on the decisions already made by those in power.
• I reject the idea that one can only hope for things to monotonically get better or worse. Usually, decisions have tradeoffs. IMO, the “marginal benefit” of voting against an autocrat (1) does not actually exist and (2) debating its existence clogs up radical spaces and time (like I am doing right now! but my time isn’t very valuable to me lol) to debunk, taking this time and space from doing actually important stuff.