When I look at the current state of politics, I see a problem. It’s either vote in a Republican whose party wants to regress society or a Democrat whose actions lead us to stagnation in a best-case scenario. Progressives like myself want society to move forward and are therefore considered far-left on the political spectrum—still technically within the Democrat party but at the same time quite distant. We’re treated as outsiders by Democrats, and the way some of us vote are seen is problematic. Why?
From their lens, the notion of “voting for the lesser of two evils” (or the trolley problem) is supported. Basically, if you’re a progressive or an independent Democrat, you ought to support whatever the establishment Democrat or nominee is. No write-ins and definitely no voting for anyone else. Not coming together to support the “stable” candidate could result in Republicans taking control. In fact, staunch supporters of this method often accuse those who don’t follow along of sabotaging, inadvertently voting for the opposite party, supporting discrimination against minorities, or simply wasting your vote. In a sense, they make valid points, but there are several reasons why I and others continue to vote accordingly despite this.
While it could be better to consolidate all the left-leaning voters together to fight against a right-wing candidate, issues become apparent as we look at whose voting. Since the majority of the voting block is older, more moderate Democrats are thrust into the spotlight. From a progressive point of view, these politicians seldom create change and repeatedly incorporate “Republican-lite” thinking into their actions, bills they introduce, and supported ideals.
For example, look no further than in this state of Rhode Island, where, despite having an overwhelming democrat majority for such a long time, the state suffers from severe corruption, environmental issues, problems around equity and equality, and more. This is also evident in other blue areas such as Massachusetts, New York City, and Atlanta. Simply put, the majority of democrats we elect aren’t progressive enough to create meaningful, positive change.
So, stagnation is usually an ideal outcome when choosing these Democrats, and it’s just one of many issues this strategy presents that supporters overlook. In fact, the arguments they make, the opposite may be more true, and ultimately, not voting for the most progressive candidate is more problematic. With that, let’s examine these problems posed by supporting the current mindset.
- If people do not feel comfortable with voting for who they want to, the core principle of an election is taken away.
- Moderate Democrats are continually elected and pose a range of problems.
- This groups often puts forth ‘republicanesque’ ideals. With this, society becomes stagnant, issues aren’t adequately addressed fast enough, and larger issues such as climate change, gun violence, election integrity, minority rights, and more take a toll that may inevitably cause mass deaths if we don’t act.
- Infighting can be observed as many of these Democrats side with Republicans on crucial bills, and even worse, moderate Democrats negotiating with hard-right Republican Party members doesn’t lend itself to a balanced, practical outcome.
- Stagnant Democratic Party. We know that progressives positively move the entire Democratic Party left.
- Many of them may be labeled as a Democrat today, but as time progresses and society shifts left, they’re likely to be the new Republicans of the future.
- Most are older, wealthy, white men. This isn’t very encouraging or inspiring to young, progressive, and minority voters, and lends itself to a whole host of other problems and biases.
- Disenfranchises progressive voters, most of whom are made up of young and minority voters, by labeling them as outsiders and telling them it’s useless to vote or that by voting for their candidates, they support Republicans. Voters in these categories coincidentally then claim that there’s no point of pointing in this system, no candidate supports their vision, Democrats aren’t progressive enough, etc. Inevitably, these voters don’t end up voting, which results in an older voting turnout and a higher vote percentage for Republicans.
- It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since we presume no one else will vote for the non-moderate candidates, we don’t.
- Upholds the two-party system. If more people voted for progressive candidates, they would get more of a platform, funding, and thus, more support.
What is the solution? We need to act pragmatically and with urgency. Every four years, we cannot continue shaming certain voters and shouting, “This is the most important election, so you need to vote for the establishment and whatever nominee is picked,” and expecting anything to change, a higher voter turnout, or any nuanced politics.
The Democratic establishment needs to back progressive candidates to entice the swaths of young and minority voters to participate. In addition, frankly, voters need to be less scared to vote for the “fringe progressive candidate.” To further comfort these ideas, ranked-choice voting needs to be adopted, as well as making voting easier and accommodating for this busy population. So, while the trolley problem may be real here, I believe there is a track that we haven’t fully investigated yet, which could lead to a much better outcome.