Unless I'm mistaken, he's merely trying to say that to him, if both sides are going to eat your face, anyway, it's better to try and get a different option instead of just hoping one side won't eat your face quite as badly.
I think the problem, in this case, is that one side promised to eat your face, and not only did the other side not promise to eat your face, but there was evidence supporting the fact that they wouldn't eat your face and were opposed to eating people's faces period.
So equating the two of them is disingenuous, especially since voting for a third side helped the side that promised to eat your face eat your face.
This has literally crossed into the dumbest analogy ever at this point. ---