I've said before than in most cases, different moral theories have similar results. In fact, most of us aren't very conscious about what moral theory we're using to make our decisions -- we just feel our moral choices to be obvious, and will draw from a variety of different arguments if we have to defend them.
The differences in people's moral reasoning are never so obvious as when they vote and when they talk about voting. Different moral theories result in different frameworks for reasoning about how to vote, and ultimately in different votes.
Let me describe what I mean by a few examples.
Deontologist voter: There are a few non-negotiables. Whichever candidate passes a basic threshold of agreement on these gets his vote. For instance, this was how I voted in 2004. I didn't research the candidates at all. I simply knew that one of them said he was pro-life, and the other did not, so I picked the one that did.
Virtue ethics voter: This person says that his vote has little effect on the course of the nation (because it's only one vote) but a huge effect on his own morality. If he votes for someone who supports torture, for instance, it might make him more prone to excuse torture. So he will generally vote for a perfectly pure candidate who has no chance at winning. Mark Shea recommends this approach. I did it in 2012, voting for Gary Johnson because I found both major candidates morally unacceptable.
Group loyalty voter: This person chooses a person who seems like "one of us" -- someone who signals that they care about the same moral issues and belong to the same tribe as the voter. Candidates are well aware of this method of voting, so they will gather endorsements from churches, drop dogwhistles to their key constituencies, and signal group membership any way they can. The reasoning is that it doesn't matter what the candidate's individual positions are, because anyone might be lying -- what they want is a person they can trust to make the right decisions once they get there. To do that, the candidate should share, as closely as possible, the moral assumptions of the voter.
Nihilist voter: They feel discouraged because their vote doesn't count much, or because they are unimpressed by all available candidates, so they stay home. I did this in 2008, in part because I had moved and not re-registered in time, but partly just because I felt disillusioned with politics in general and didn't see anyone I could get excited about voting for.
Consequentialist voter: This person does not care about whether the candidate is personally likeable, and doesn't need to agree with the candidate on any one issue. Instead, they consider, of all the possible consequences of the election, which would be best. Sometimes they call this the "lesser of two evils" approach, to emphasize that they're not voting for who they are because they actually like them. But it is possible that consequentialism might lead one to vote for a worse candidate in order to discredit that party or punish the other party. Or they might vote third party in order to send a message to the two parties that there is a rise in libertarianism or socialism or whatever and the parties should trend that way to win more votes next time. This was certainly a part of my thinking in 2012 as well. Consequentialism is the entirety of my rationale this time.
You've probably heard that Cruz is out and therefore it will probably be Trump vs. Clinton (unless Sanders has a massive surge). So it's a much simpler consideration than it used to be. I'd have seriously considered voting for Cruz, but I no longer have to weigh potential consequences of that now.
I can't know what all the consequences of either result will be. But my assessment is that the world will be significantly worse under Trump, while Clinton is more likely to preserve the status quo or make things slightly worse. Of the two possibilities, a Clinton win is better.
In past years I probably would have voted third party while harboring a secret hope that Trump would lose. But at this point, being more strongly consequentialist than I used to be, I'll vote for the result I want, regardless of any personal animus or rational disapproval of the candidate. Because my moral duty is to make things the best I can, rather than to preserve my own sense of moral purity by voting third party.
If your moral theory is different, you'll likely come up with different answers. Whatever you do, I hope we're all still friends come this December. This country probably can't be saved, not in the way I might hope, but good friendships can. And when you realize that those who disagree with you on voting aren't evil, but simply making their moral choices according to a slightly different framework, it may be easier to respect them even when they vote differently from you.