That is the philosophical difference of opinion between statism and anarchy again. I haven't yet seen many occasions where either side considered to change their opinion.
I agree, and I reject all of your statist views.
1) Vote and agree to support the outcome of the election. Even if you voted for someone else. Those are the rules which are known to all participants in advance. You have no right to complain because by voting you have legitimized to be governed by whoever wins.
Nonsense. If a criminal says "your money or your life", you can choose to give your money without losing your right to complain about that loss.
2) Do not vote and choose to accept to support the outcome of the election.
Nonsense. If someone asks you whether they should kill your family by shooting them or by setting your house on fire, you can choose not to answer without losing your right to complain about the choice and outcome.
3) Do not vote due to moral objections. For example if you believe it is morally wrong to use force against people except in self-defense, you would act against your own ethics if you voted. Because by that act you legitimize that the government is allowed to use its monopoly on violence upon others that don't agree with your point of view.
Nonsense. If a mob is choosing whether to cut off both your legs or just one of them, you can use any methods available to you to get just one leg cut off without in any way legitimizing the mob or the range of choices.
I utterly reject all three of your statist views. An individual may defend himself from the State's threatened evils however he thinks best without thereby becoming responsible for those evils.