Hah! That's why your argument has been based on ad hominems, name-calling, and retorts that boil down to "Nuh uh". Don't bullshit me, you never had any intention of considering anything that conflicted with the conclusions you started with. You made up your mind before I ever said anything, don't try and cry "good faith" now.

than debate the meanings of words.

We wouldn't have to if your entire argument wasn't based entirely on a nebulous definition of "legitimate" which you still haven't defined in a way that makes your argument coherent.

In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used.

Your essential point is that participating in elections improperly lends them "legitimacy", which is why we shouldn't do it. But "legitimacy" doesn't have a definition I know of which makes your conclusion true, and when I ask what your definition is you get evasive: name calling, non sequiturs, emotional outbursts.

You're not saying the sky is blue, you're Humpty Dumpty using "glory" to mean "a nice knock down argument". If you don't want people to pick apart your semantics, you have to use words in their common definitions. You are not using "legitimacy" by its common definition, and the interpretation of that word is the essential core of your argument.