This is a guide to think less like a voter and more like an activist.
Activists see voting as a small but meaningful tool within the larger scope of activist movement building. To paraphrase Starhawk, “direct action and voting are not jealous lovers.” We don't vote as an end in itself but as a means to support our larger struggles. To illustrate this, below I address the most common objections facing conscientious voters in 2024:
Voting for Democrats Surrenders Leverage
“Once they have your vote after perpetuating genocide, they know there is nothing you won't allow them to do.”
While on its face, voting for Harris may appear to be a major concession, the people who "vote for our movements" see a non-vote or third party vote (in swing states) as surrendering the most important type of leverage, and that's the leverage we'll have for either 4 year of Harris or Trump after the election.
With Trump, pro-Palestine and leftist movements will face even harsher crackdowns and criminalization, in addition to mass deportations and dozens of other fires our movements will be swamped by. Under Harris, energies we would have put towards fighting mass deportations can go towards getting an arms embargo. Under Harris, activists can still push against harmful policies without the added threat of increased state repression promised under Trump, as outlined by Project Esther, the 33-page plan designed to crush pro-Palestine movements within 1-2 years of Trump taking office.
Leverage in politics isn’t about withholding support to “send a message” but about preserving the best possible conditions where our voices can influence outcomes.
In a two-party system where third parties have been rigged to lose, strategic voting gives us the most political space to continue building pressure, organizing, and pushing leaders to respond to our demands, knowing Democrats are far more responsive to left-wing movements than Republicans. Republicans like Trump would sooner deport us, shoot us or lock us up before they'd consider conceding to our demands.
The days of Nixon-Republicans being somewhat sensitive to left-wing pressure are long over. Today, Democrats are the moderate Republicans, while the Republicans are the party of fascists. They have moved so far to the right, even members of their own party are breaking ranks and openly calling them fascist. It's been decades since left-wing movements have been able to move Republicans on anything. They are an extremist authoritarian party built on obstructionism and pathological ruthlessness, wholly subservient to the interests of empire, Christian Nationalism and oligarchy.
Strategic voters recognize this and prioritize our movements over whatever leverage we lose by voting for our preferred opponents.
The "vote for our movements" strategy sees organized activism in between elections as the most important form of change and the most important site of struggle. Elections are where we choose the terrain of struggle. The real fight always comes before and after, not at the ballot box.
Voting for Democrats is White Privilege
“Voting to maintain your comfort level when the price tag is genocide against indigenous people is the height of white privilege.”
This argument seems to operate in bad faith by assuming that those who vote strategically are doing so for “comfort” rather than a tactical choice to preserve space where movements can resist policies that are deeply harmful. It also ignores the existence of the countless non-white folks who would strongly disagree with this line of thinking.
Voting for Harris isn’t about endorsing every action of the Democratic Party but about avoiding the very real dangers of a Trump administration, which would accelerate the genocide, give us less leverage to stop it, and add mass deportations, a national abortion ban, and even more severe criminalization of dissent to the list of problems we're fighting. Calling strategic voting “privilege” ignores the fact that under Trump, movements would have fewer channels to effectively resist these policies, which impact Indigenous and other marginalized communities directly.
Moreover, it’s critical not to generalize, as no group votes as a monolith. Many Palestinian American, Muslim, and Arab voters choose to vote for Harris because they see it as the best option to reduce harm, while others abstain for deeply personal and principled reasons. But each person in these communities makes this decision based on a wide array of considerations, many of which are rooted in direct experience with the oppressive policies at stake. It’s reductive—and frankly counterproductive—to reduce strategic voting to “white privilege” when it’s about preserving material leverage that helps real people on the ground.
Before deciding where you stand, I would at least listen to voices from places like Arizona, where activists face real threats and recognize that one administration enables them to push back, while the other would silence them entirely.
A Vote for Jill Stein is a Vote to End the Genocide
“Every vote for our anti-genocide campaign is a shot across the bow of the empire. We're on the ballot as a real challenge to the parties of war and Wall Street." - Jill Stein
When Mehdi Hasan asked Jill Stein how a vote for her would functionally help end the genocide, she said it would be a “shot across the bow” of empire, but that’s a purely symbolic gesture.
Third parties have been getting 1% of the vote for over two decades. My friends, that is no threat to the establishment, and Stein has no chance of winning in 2024. The elites are laughing at us, and it's appalling that the Greens, after two decades of trying the same strategy, are still promoting the virtues of symbolic protest over material outcomes.
Can anyone tell me how voting for Jill Stein in swing-states will *functionally* help end the genocide? If the Democrats lose, they will be in no position to act for four years, and by then it will be far too late. We also know third party voting doesn't send a signal to elites to change course because that strategy failed in 2016 in the wake of Clinton's loss. They sidelined Bernie Sanders again in 2020 and we got the centrist Biden anyway. Rather than appeal to progressives they continue to court centrist voters when they lose, as foolish as that strategy is.
Make no mistake, if Harris loses, Harris and the Democrats in power will have only themselves to blame, but I don’t believe our vote should hinge on what signal it may or may not send to elites.
Sadly, without Ranked Choice Voting, seeking to defeat Harris in a bid to punish one half of the duopoly only serves to punish our own movements while the other half of the duopoly carries on unaffected. This is the functional outcome in a rigged system that ensures third-party votes merely empower one half of the duopoly over the other. The only thing that will threaten both parties is a movement to build democratic power at the local level and get RCV in all 50 states.
In the meantime, Netanyahu and his right-wing party wants Trump to win, because it will obviously make our efforts to get an arms embargo far harder. Vote your conscience by all means but my conscience compels me to use my vote as effectively as possible to support our movements. I'm not interested in using it to send a message to elites they will likely ignore, which functionally only serves to empower extremist right-wing forces.
Your vote, of course, is yours to cast how you wish. Just know that no matter how we vote, whether Stein, Harris, or otherwise, that will not stop the genocide. The only thing that has a chance is organized, sustained activism, which must continue and grow no matter who wins in November. Everyone I know who is voting Harris to defeat Trump is not doing so because we “endorse genocide” as some argue in bad faith. We are doing so to give our efforts the best chance to succeed.
Voting for Democrats = Complicity
“A vote for Harris is a vote for genocide. If this isn't a red line for you…”
So, “voting = endorsement” is one way to look at it, but there are other legitimate ways to see the purpose of voting.
Another one is "harm reduction," based on valuing material outcomes over casting a mostly symbolic protest vote.
Another view is: “you vote to choose your opponent.” This is how I see it. I'd prefer to fight neoliberals over fascists.
I think we need to get past this idea that voting can only be a mechanism of endorsement. It's certainly how we were all taught to see it, as far back as civics class in grade school, but this is a passive way of viewing voting. "Choose your opponent" implies activism and organized rebellion.
From this stance, voting is a small part of a much larger struggle, and thus, doesn't garner so much emotional handwringing. You're going to fight no matter who is in power. You're going to oppose the crimes of your government regardless of the empire's captain. Voting is simply a tool to choose the terrain of struggle. Voting for our movements means spending an hour every two years to preserve the best organizing conditions for the struggle and then we get on with the real work. That's how I see it.
When talking about integrity - between who we vote for and whether we engage in activism - activism will always matter more. I don't really care what signal my vote sends to elites. They honestly do not care, and they will not be scared by 1-3% of people voting third-party again, sadly. I'd love to see a spontaneous third-party uprising as much as anyone, but decades have passed with this same song and dance and it's become part of the status quo as much as the duopoly at this point. I hate to admit it. Without ranked choice voting in place in every state, the only thing that will scare the ruling class is people getting engaged the other 364 days of the year.
Part of that year-round activism should also include fighting for Ranked Choice Voting, building the power of third parties at the local level, and so much more. But who we choose for president every 4 years? I'm voting for the terrain that best helps our movements.
Democrats Are to Blame for Their Losses, Not Voters or Third-Party Candidates
“It's unfair to blame Ralph Nader and Jill Stein for costing the Democrats the election in 2000 and 2016. It's also wrong to blame those who voted for them.”
Democrats are always to blame, first and foremost, for their losses. But that doesn't mean we have to vote in non-strategic ways that harm our movements either. Data shows those elections could have been swayed by the margins that went to third parties, and while no one owes the Democrats their vote, it's still on us to survey the material conditions we face and make strategic choices that best serve our movements.
Surveying the fallout of past Democratic losses and the lack of power built by the Green Party in that time, I can't say this strategy is worth continuing.
As this statement by Palestinian, Muslim, Arab and Progressive Democrats in Arizona wrote:
"Some argue that if Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim voters and our allies vote for a 3rd party candidate and intentionally throw the election to Trump, taking credit for defeating Harris, it will prove our power to decide a close election and “punish Democrats” for complicity in genocide. Unfortunately, this is not how power, politics, or change works in our country.
When Ralph Nader helped throw the election to Bush in 2000, he was rejected by millions for whom he was once a hero, banished ever since to the political margins. When Jill Stein helped throw the election to Trump in 2016, she remained relegated to the political fringe, becoming less powerful not more. If our communities ally with the Green Party to defeat Harris, we risk marginalizing ourselves as they did by alienating the tens of millions of voters who support the cause of Palestinian freedom and are fighting to defeat Trump by electing her.
Instead, by helping to elect Kamala Harris, we can say, “Despite it all, we gave you another chance and helped put you in office to defend democracy and uphold our highest American values. Now uphold them: end the genocide and secure Palestinian self-determination. We will fight every day to hold you to it.” If Harris and Democrats win, we will wage that fight with more allies among the American people, Congress, and the White House than ever before. If they don’t deliver, we will have a mandate and mass support to hold them accountable through every nonviolent tool of democracy, including protests, resignations, civil disobedience, primary election challenges, and even potential mass noncooperation. It’s a difficult path, but the one that offers the most hope.
The first step –– and our best choice in this horrible situation –– is defeating Trump by electing Harris. We urge you to join us."
It is a great detriment in my view that the Green Party has effectively repeated the same strategy for over two decades and failed to build power in all that time. We ought to be honest about that. They are up against incredible odds, no doubt, and the Democrats and Republicans deserve scorn for their duplicitous attacks on third parties at every turn. But the machinations of the duopoly can't excuse poor strategy executed by Green leadership.
In my book, it makes no sense to run for POTUS with zero Green Party seats won in the senate or congress. If one were serious about building real power, you'd build it from below, focusing on winning seats in congress and the senate first, gaining a third of the seats in both houses, which means you've built real constituent power that can win elections. You’d also focus on getting Ranked Choice Voting in every state.
When you're 38 moves into the game, THEN run for POTUS. As it is, they are attempting to checkmate their opponent after 3 moves on the chess board, despite losing the same way multiple times in a row. I just can't get behind a poor strategy that's failed to deliver results over two decades.
I've suggested a few ways the Greens could shift their communications strategy in a previous article. There's a potential win/win strategy they could pursue, but it's doubtful they'll shift gears at this point. They seem entrenched in a symbolic approach to challenging power, and without those in the Green Party to challenge them and demand they do better, it's unlikely they will.
The Democratic Socialists of America, Sunrise Movement, and NDN Collective have a much better organizing strategy, in my view.
As it happens, the NDN Collective just released a video on “how to vote like a radical.” It’s one of the most beautiful and succinct expressions of radical politics, and I couldn’t agree more.
Further Reading
|
|
Tim Hjersted ·
"It’s one thing to criticize neoliberalism; it’s quite another to imagine that a fascist regime will provide better conditions for our movements to flourish."
|
|
|
Tim Hjersted ·
Do the Democrats deserve to be abandoned for their complicity in supporting genocide? Absolutely. Is this a wise strategy, if getting a ceasefire and arms embargo is our goal? History and Trump suggests no. It will make the task far...
|
|
|
Tim Hjersted ·
Strategic materialism + activism > symbolic protest at the ballot box.
|
|
|
NDN Collective ·
NOTE: In the days leading up to the election, NDN Collective was invited to participate and contribute to a video with other organizers and activists, calling upon the movement to “Vote Like a Radical,” inspired by the essay authored by...
|
|
|
We the Undersigned ·
As Democrats and leaders in the Palestinian, Arab, Muslim and Progressive communities in Arizona, we the undersigned make the following statement, published on 10/24/2024:
|
|
|
Jurgen Yats ·
As another election season approaches, we are faced with the age old anarchist dilemma: To vote or not to vote.
|
|
|
Vincent Pagliaccio ·
A Kamala Harris presidency will not fundamentally change the neo-liberal status quo, but what wins can we get?
|
Quotes from Those Who “Vote For Our Movements”
"Voting is a chess move, not a valentine. And here's the joy of being politically engaged all year round every year; you get to work with a whole lot of chess pieces and players and strategies and long-term visions, so you don't agonize over whether this little hop with a pawn we call voting defines you. You get to define yourself by what you're passionately committed to, by who you align with, by your dreams and your visions, you get to move a lot of pieces a lot of times, you get heroic allies, and you play to win above, beyond, around elections. But you vote, because you know it matters too."
- Rebecca Solnit
"Political strategies and tactics are not jealous lovers. You don’t have to be monogamous. Direct Action will not feel betrayed if you also vote from time to time—you can be poly in your tactics. And I am. Of course I vote! If you’re a woman, or a person of color, or a person who doesn’t own property, or even a white male who doesn’t belong to the nobility, centuries of struggle and many deaths have bought you the right to vote. I vote to keep faith with peasant rebels and suffragist hunger strikers and civil rights workers braving the lynch mobs of the South, if for no other reason. But there is another reason—because who we vote for has an enormous impact on real peoples’ lives." - Starhawk
"When women and African Americans didn't even have the right to vote, did they say, "Hey, voting has never done anything for us in the past! Why even bother? Why invest energy in gaining the right to vote when it's clearly pointless. The game is rigged! We should probably just put our attention elsewhere..."
Apply any argument for not voting today to a time when people couldn't vote at all, and it seems clear that the answer isn't to concede defeat. It's to fight!
If there is an institution in the world that has the power and legal authority of an established police, court, prison & military system, the people should have control over that system.
Full stop.
Change it or alter it to make it more humane of course, but to do that the public has to have control over those systems (from without and from within).
Voting will never lead to revolution by itself. But not voting will never lead to revolution or true democracy either. For the people to have the power, for the people to realize the dream of a true democracy, they must contest and fight for that power, not concede it to far right forces that will continue to vote and seize government power regardless of any non-voting rebellion." - Tim Hjersted
Tim Hjersted is the director and co-founder of Films For Action, an online library for people who want to change the world.
Activism
Politics