Does Your Vote Matter?

Parker Thibault
Jan 21
8 min read

Updated: Jun 11

Edited by Prim M.

Voting is an issue (among many others of course) that divides the political left. Centrist leaning Democrats will argue that although the Democratic party is not perfect, it is still necessary for people (young people especially) to give the Democratic candidate their vote. Centrists argue that not voting, or god forbid voting third party, is essentially giving away votes to the Republicans, who took away abortion access, further escalated war, and deregulated the economy during the Trump administration.

Noam Chomsky has claimed that although the Democratic party is compromised in a number of ways, it is preferable to an administration that is directly opposed to them (i.e. Project 2025).

Progressives who are considered more “radical” on the other hand will argue that voting is essentially useless because of the corporate stranglehold of our government. After all, it was Clinton who solidified the economic destruction of the Reagan Era. Obama ran on “Hope and Change”, but during his time in office congress still allowed Wall Street CEOs (who wrecked the economy) to keep their bonuses. We in essence have a Republican and Diet-Republican, ideologically center right, two party system. Voting is simply not enough to make substantial change that is necessary for our society to transform.

So where does this leave us on the issue of voting? Are we just left with voting for “the lesser of two evils”? Or is everything just completely fucked?

The voting issue is significant because it also shows a fundamental difference in philosophy between the idealistic and pragmatic, older and younger, and perhaps the more affluent and disenfranchised. I am bringing this issue to your awareness, not to create a wedge among our broader movement, but to acknowledge that there can be different strategies for the same cause.

To examine if voting is effective for lasting social change, let’s examine a few stats.

Is Voting Worthwhile?

According to the US Census Bureau, in the United States 161 million people are registered to vote. 55.8% of people 18 to 24 years old are registered to vote , 61.6% among 25 to 44 years old, 69.9% among 45 to 64 years old, and 75.8% among those who are 65+ (yikes!!).

Politicians every 4 years will say “If only more young people went out and voted for the Democratic candidate, we would win more elections, and their voices would be heard.”

Progressives however, are skeptical of voting for career politicians who fail to do what they’ve promised.

"Even if I do go out and vote, isn’t the election determined by the electoral college anyways?"

This is a fair criticism among those who are skeptical of voting. Voting may not be the end all be all if our vote is interpreted by the electoral college anyways. To be elected as President, requires not just winning the popular vote, but a majority of the electoral college votes as well. In the election years 2000 and 2016, Presidents Bush and Trump won not by the popular vote, but by the vote of the electoral college.

To quote The Guardian on this subject:

“Even though the United States touts its status as one of the world’s leading democracies, its citizens do not get to directly choose the president. That task is reserved for the electoral college – the convoluted way in which Americans have selected their president since the 18th century.”

Electoral votes are determined by population sizes of states. Smaller states of the country have three electoral votes, whereas California has fifty four. My state of Connecticut has seven. The twenty two least populated states of the country, though a lower population of California when combined, have more electoral votes. The purpose of this was ostensibly to balance power among states, but in practice has left the outcome of the election to the whims of the electoral college.

"Even if the Democratic Candidate gets elected to office, will they really do anything for us?"

For virtually all of their adult lives, politicians of the Democratic party have told young people to suck it up and vote for them anyways, because as spineless as they may be, Trump is worse, and must be defeated at all costs. As seen throughout the 2024 election, the Democratic party refused to get in the ring and fight in any meaningful way. A party with billions at its disposal lost to a con man who couldn't even make a casino profitable. The Democratic party feels they are entitled to our vote in order to retain in power. Why should we vote for the Democratic party if they’re going to just let us drown in student loans, and send us to die in a third world war?

Palestine, Protests, and The Third Party

In retaliation to the October 7th attack of Israelis by Hamas, over forty-five thousand Palestinians were killed, and many more were injured. In response to seeing the carnage unfold, citizens across the US protested their government’s support of such a Genocidal regime.

The relentless, ongoing pressure and call for a lasting ceasefire in Palestine was a critical issue for the 2024 election. Protests took a number of forms, from marches on DC, to student encampments. Pro-Palestinian protestors made their voices heard by demanding a ceasefire at Kamala’s rallies. The first time this happened, Kamala’s response was what you would expect of a Centrist Democrat. Kamala in essence told the protestors they have to vote for her if they don’t want Trump, and that it was “my turn to speak”. Also quite predictably, the progressive base was dissatisfied with this lack of commitment to do anything of substance to such a critical issue.

The second time Kamala was confronted by Pro-Palestinian protestors, she changed her response, and said that we have to hear them out and give them a chance. This was probably a cynical attempt to win over the youth vote, however, it does show the power and influence of our movement. Although ultimately Kamala lost the 2024 election, this should be encouraging to any activist, whether they consider themselves leaning progressive, radical, or more aligned with the Democratic Party. Trump on the other hand, proposed to make campuses “patriotic again” by deporting Pro-Palestinian students.

Anyone who still argues that Trump is Anti-War at this point is just coping.

At the 2024 DNC, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez endorsed Kamala Harris for President and claimed that a Harris administration would fight for a ceasefire. Progressives were critical of AOC’s endorsement, because if Harris really was for a ceasefire, then how do you explain the lack of meaningful action on the issue when in power for the previous four years? To those who argue that a vice president is limited in their influence, one only need to look at Dick Cheney’s influence on the Bush Administration.

Progressives are astute for seeing such claims as empty promises. Politicians have been calling for a two state solution for decades as they continue to fund and support a genocidal regime. I would be truly amazed if any centrist leaning Democrat running for office would make progress on the Israeli/Palestine conflict when in a position of power.

To criticize Israel while running for political office is career suicide. One example is AIPAC’s funding of fifteen million dollars to oppose Jamaal Bowman, an outspoken critic of Israel. To many in Washington, Israel is considered to be a “Strategic Ally” in the region. I would argue there is nothing diplomatic about supporting a regime that kills innocent people by the tens of thousands.

As a country, we cannot claim we are for human rights, while funding and supporting a state that violates them at every opportunity.

It is fair to say Harris was a better candidate than Trump on domestic issues. However, whether we are more centrist or progressive leaning, we must acknowledge Harris would not have delivered a substantial change in America’s foreign policy. Harris may have advocated for a two state solution and ceasefire in the debate, but offered no concrete plan for how to bring it about.

How is a ceasefire even possible if you continue to provide arms to a government that is committing a genocide?

Between the power of the Israel Lobby in the United States, ideological groupthink in Washington, and pro-war Media, it is difficult to imagine seeing a candidate running on the values of genuine peace and diplomacy any time soon.

Progressives are sick and tired of how the Democrats feel entitled to their vote despite delivering so little on a number of critical issues, and thus voted for a third party candidate as a means to express their dissent. One of such candidates is Jill Stein of the green party. Jill Stein is in staunch opposition to the military industrial complex, which has caused endless suffering and destruction to the environment. Despite running on a platform that the Democratic party should be running on, not all were enthused.

A critic of Jill Stein was none other than AOC herself. AOC faced criticism on social media, after claiming that Jill Stein is “Predatory” because the Green Party doesn’t have as much political power as the Democratic Party. This of course shows AOC has become out of touch with her progressive base, because the point of voting for a third party candidate is to challenge the powerful.

A common talking point among liberals is that voting third party is wasting your vote, and could actually cost the election. This is refuted by the fact that Harris lost both the popular vote by four million votes, and the electoral college by seventy-five votes. A YouGov poll shows that for many people who did not vote for Harris, their reason was the Genocide in Gaza. Even if every single vote for Jill Stein went to Kamala Harris instead, she still would have lost by three and a half million votes across the entire country.

Voting for a third party candidate is called a “protest vote” as an insult, but that is the point.

To conclude, I don’t think it’s effective or productive to shame people for whatever choice they make to vote or not vote. If you feel it is productive to vote for the democratic party, but work with activists and apply sufficient pressure to elected officials to change policy, then that is your calling. If you feel too frustrated to vote for the “Diet Republicans”, I encourage you to contribute to progressive causes with your time and skills in other ways. Regardless of if you vote or not, what is absolutely necessary is relentless pressure applied to those in power, for a lasting social change.