While the current list of candidates clearly does not seem qualified to the author, there is a problem with what he is saying.

The problem is the constitution. That may seem ironic considering the thrust of his argument but this irony does not make it less true.

The constitution has specific qualifications laid out for becoming president. The only one we control is the electors’ choice as a reflection of the popular vote. The constitution does not make mention of the need to be liked. The constitution has no ego. It does not care if you love it or if you have some constitutionally-oriented concept of patriotism. The constitution lays out the rules and lays out the mechanisms for interpreting those rules and for changing them. Legitimacy is the domain of the Supreme Court. Since the only qualification we control is popular approval, withholding our vote does not give us greater control. The constitution already has a category for this. Not acting simply makes us non-actors.

I doubt this will change the complaints of the author. The only difference it will make is that whatever complaints he has about the new administration will sound more like the punchline to a joke after January. This short-sighted thinking leads to unintended consequences (eg: 2000). Irrational acting only leads to unwanted results.