Very few large elections are decided by a single vote\. Therefore, the election winner if you vote is almost certainly identical to the winner if you don't vote; 50,834 votes for Kodos or 50,221 votes for Kang would not change the outcome\. So you shouldn't expend the time and research costs involved in voting\. Many other people similar to you are deciding whether to vote, or how to vote, based on similar considerations\. Your decision probably correlates with their decision\. You should consider the costs of all people like you voting, and the consequence of all people like you voting\.
Is there no standard perspective that says:
Very few elections are decided by a single vote, but those that do are sufficiently important that it's worth voting (especially in close areas)? Naive expected value calculation, which sometimes comes out positive without any need for serious decision-theoretic analysis (because from your perspective, your chance of being the deciding vote is proportional to the size of the system you're potentially moving)?
If you're only talking about the case where an election has a clear winner in advance and your vote is, based on your knowledge of the system, extraordinarily unlikely to tip the balance (by enough to outweigh the size of the effect compared to you, which the current example definitely does not do), then I could see discarding that, but it should be addressed or a situation set up to remove it.