On the Canada/Trudeau front, you're ultimately correct but it's a bit worse when you examine the details:

Trudeau Liberals put together a committee to examine the options and recommend what would work best as a new electoral system. The Liberals recommended ranked voting: as the Liberals are the default first or second option for nearly everyone, this benefitted them the most. The Conservatives, New Democrats, and most independent actors favoured Mixed-Member Proportional, which is a variant of proportional representation with locally elected Members of Parliament and additional seats in the House of Commons to balance the total number of MPs and votes for each party. This system was expected to allow for more smaller parties to operate and would end the forever Liberal/Conservative control of Canada.

The Liberals put out a poll which used intentionally misleading questions and answers to try to guide responses towards ranked ballots. This effort failed due to a series of information campaigns from just about everyone with an interest in electoral reform, and ultimately the Mixed-Member Proportional system came out as the leading choice.

The Trudeau Liberals deemed the whole process and failure and completely dropped it, refusing to discuss it ever again.

Votes are earned not deserved.

...no. in our pretty bad first past the post system, we shouldn't vote for a good candidate. We should vote for the best, or least bad one.

Less voter turnout wouldn't influence the system at all, and even if it did, there are not enough people with your views— your 80% figures— to pull something like that off. Maybe wait.

Because right now, yes both possible candidates won't stop the major genocide going on, but one would actively do less harm to queer people, women, etc.

Voting is for harm minimization, not endorsement.