You can look at the only realistic options presented to you and like none of them. In most majoritarian democracies, the choices on offer are often difficult to justify morally. In many majoritarian democracies, the policy proposals on offer are so vague and incoherent, and the system itself is so gummed up and dysfunctional, that it’s hard to argue that real change will happen through electoral politics instead of direct action, grassroots organizing, working outside the system to change the system.

That’s right. I agree. But here’s the case for voting strategically anyway.

I’m a leftist. The policies I want are things that electoral politics might not be equipped for, at least within the near-future. But electoral politics doesn’t have to be about endorsing a candidate or a platform. As a leftist, electoral politics to me is a vote on the environment I want to be organizing in. I want to do grassroots work. I want to get ideas and policy proposals out there. I want to be able to freely convince people about the value of my ideas and the advantages of my proposals.

The policies I want aren’t on offer. The policies we want are things we have to make happen, outside of the conventional electoral system. A repressive authoritarian government makes direct action, the spread of new ideas, grassroots organizing, and any behavior critical of the ruling establishment much, much harder.

You don’t have to work within the system. For real change, you might need to work outside it. But you want to ask- in what kind of external environment do you think you would best be able to bring about this real, outside-the-system change?

Will a government that regularly carries out heavy-handed crackdowns on opposition and changes the rules constantly to crush dissent, allow an environment where you would be able to best effect change? Even if you’re courageous and unfazed, would it allow those more vulnerable to participate freely in bringing about change?

Voting is a means to an end. The lesser of two evils doesn’t have to be something you endorse. The lesser of two evils just needs to be the option that makes tearing down those evils, bringing about real change, more likely to happen. The lesser of two evils as the establishment makes targeting the establishment an easier, safer, and more effective task. The lesser of two evils is taking the sting out of state power and its control over our every move. To bring about wholesale change, you want an easier target- one without a reckless authoritarian consolidating their power by the day, growing stronger and more repressive, pulling together more and more levers of power to keep the populace in check.