According to a liberal interpretation of Canon law, "passive attendance" at the new mass is ok.  Therefore, I'm going to "passively vote".

Nope.  According to some catholics, we're allowed to "passively" watch as evil is committed (i.e. Indult/new masses of weddings/funerals).  This is some weird loophole that *most* agree with.

So I can "passively" watch an abortion take place.  Or I can "passively" attend a black mass. 

Thus, I can also "passively" vote.  The voting is rigged anyways, so the outcome is already decided.  My vote doesn't matter, thus my "passive" curiosity in the election process is morally neutral.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.  Passively watch an abortion?  "According to some Catholics"? 
How can someone "passively vote"  voting is a personal action not an observation.

No he did not. Please do not post accusations which are the opposite of reality.
See this:

Trump on LGBTQ Rights: Rolling Back Protections and Criminalizing Gender Nonconformity


ACLU
Share This Page
Share on FacebookPostCopy

June 13, 2024
In the second installment of the ACLU’s election 2024 memo series, our experts detail the threats a potential second Trump administration poses to the LGBTQ community, particularly transgender people. 
This piece was published before Joe Biden withdrew from the 2024 presidential election and endorsed Vice President Kamala hαɾɾιs to represent the Democratic Party. No significant facts have been changed or added.
Donald Trump’s administration initiated a sustained, years-long effort to erase protections for LGBTQ people. This included an effort to “define ‘transgender’ out of existence,” erode protections for transgender students and workers, and weaken access to gender-affirming health care that most transgender people already struggled to access.
While President Joe Biden’s administration reversed much of the Trump-era abuses, just last month on the campaign trail, Trump vowed to dismantle a new Biden administration policy that will offer protections for transgender students under Title IX, a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.
The ACLU is prepared to defend the LGBTQ community, including transgender individuals, from a second Trump administration’s anticipated attempts to weaponize federal law against them. Learn more in our breakdown:

There seems to be some questionable moral theology on this thread.
I'm no moralist, so I'm always hesitant to enter such controversies.
However, we've seen what Fr Peter Scott had to say on the subject back in 2007:
https://www.cathinfo.com/politics-and-world-leaders/voting-and-catholic-morality-fr-peter-scott-2007/msg957847/?topicseen#msg957847
it is still permissible to vote in such a case, provided that one can be sure that there truly is a lesser evil, and that there is a grave reason to do so (e.g., to avoid abortion on demand, or promotion of unnatural methods of birth control), and one has the good intention of providing for the good of society as best one can. This is called material cooperation. However, it can never be obligatory.
If we look at the comparisons cited in this thread, abortion and lying, there is an obvious difference: abortion is always a sin in itself, lying is always a sin in itself, voting is not a sin in itself.
Your vote is the ordering of candidates standing for election to produce an outcome on the life of the nation. By voting, you have an effect on that life. By abstaining from voting you have an effect on that life.
Take an example: Candidate A will legislate to permit abortion in the first trimester in cases of rape and danger to the mother's life but will otherwise look like a Catholic ruler on all moral questions and even favour the Catholic religion. Candidate B will legislate to make satanism the cult of the state and make it compulsory in all schools, allowing child sacrifice etc etc...
Now if all the traditional Catholics and all the good people in society abstain from voting guided by the principle laid down by many on this forum that it is never permissible to vote for the lesser evil, then candidate B will certainly be elected and we will end up with a satanic state.
My common sense tells me that there is something amiss here. If I abstained in this vote, my conscience would be troubled that I had committed a sin of omission if we ended up with a satanic state.
By voting for candidate A you are not endorsing their policy of first trimester abortion, but rather, ordering candidates A and B in such a way as to prevent a multitude of sins, to defend God's honour and to save countless souls from Hell.
This is an extereme example, obviously, but it is the principle that some good Catholics, like Archbishop Vigano, are evoking to produce what they see as the best outcome in this election.
Like I say, I'm no theologian, but given what we hear from Archbishop Vigano and Fr Scott, and using my Catholic sense, it looks Catholic to me to reason in this way.
This is not what St Alphonsus is talking about is it?...

Quote from: MarkM 2024-11-05, 7:34:25 PM
Amen. Agreed with St. Alphonsus.

This does not apply to voting. If anything, the venial sin is doing nothing. Thus, since voting for Trump etc is not a venial sin but is morally justifiable under the principle of double effect, one can do it "for the purpose of saving the whole world" or just to save as many unborn lives as possible without violating the above principle of St. Alphonsus.