"Despite popular believe I don't think voting matters. "
In the end, voting is the only thing that matters. Individual choices by a small minority of the population are going to be completely ineffectual without government setting policy so that doing the right thing is also doing the most profitable thing.
But despite you being wrong in your core point in my opinion, you're absolutely right about the method. (change your lifestyle, divest fossil, direct action, civil disobedience)
The reason that voting is useless is because voters don't care about the environment. Climate change is #11 in the list of top priorities for voters.[1]. Fix that, and then voting might make a difference. And you do that by making it clearly visible that it's important to you, and by convincing others that it's important to them.
Voting matters when (1) laws ensure all people have roughly equal influence when voting, (2) laws ensure voting translates into action instead of an empty gesture to appease the population, and (3) the rule of law is respected and consistently enforced.
When one or more of these is compromised, then the actions of the government are illegitimate, and there is a continuum of actions people can take beyond voting.
Writing letters -> peaceful street protests -> nonviolent civil disobedience like blocking roads -> sabotage -> violent street protests -> armed insurrection -> civil war.
1 is not necessary for voting to matter (cf. the Electoral College). Also, gerrymandering is done specifically to avoid 1, yet it wouldn't be necessary if voting didn't matter.
Voting is important at the end, when a movement has made its case and a majority of people agrees.
But before that being vocal, determined, and incessant is what matters [1]. At first, nobody knows about you, then, nobody believes you. The climate change discourse is still not past that second stage.
> Climate change is #11 in the list of top priorities for voters.
USA is spreading conservative and fossil-fuel interests propaganda all over the world, it's very harmful, but it's not some inherent "voters don't care about X". It's simply that people paid a lot of money for voters not to care about X, and much less money to make them care about X.
Voting in most of the world is just a spectacle. If someone was elected that would in fact challenge the status quo (private property and police dominion for instance) they would be instantly murdered or imprisoned in a coup d'État.
At least that's how the story goes for revolutions in Europe/US and much of our modern colonies. As Emma Goldman once said, « if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal ».
> Individual choices by a small minority of the population are going to be completely ineffectual
This is for sure. The problems are deep and structural and no individual action (however radical) can bring change. The issue is the people profiting from human exploitation and nature's destruction (the wealthy ruling classes) will never stop until it's too late. We have to stop them. Under some circumstances, voting can be a part of this process. But most times social change comes from the people, not a piece of paper.
There is a Princeton study that shows that the laws passed at the federal level have a 0% correlation to the public opinion unless they've donated at least $10k to a campaign. This means that the average voter has taxation without representation.
Some Harvard Business people suggested that we could curb this issue by a three pronged approach:
1. Open primaries to prevent minority duopolies in the general
2. Gerrymander with an open source algorithm or a "shortest split line" method
3. Implement single transferrable vote, ie ranked choice, instead of first past the post (plurality voting), which spoils votes and results in sub-par representation.
> This means that the average voter has taxation without representation.
Well, that's the main attribute of representative "democracy". This system we live in was setup in 1789 by the bourgeoisie to prevent emergence of a democracy. Many Lumières philosophers were frightened by actual democracy (the rule of the people). Voltaire famously said: « The people should be guided, not taught ».
These Harvard people you mention are not wrong. They're just so deep into the status quo they can't even imagine what a real democracy would look like. Building a democracy has nothing to do with technical details. Sure, some Condorcet-style voting system would favor smaller candidates. But to me, as an anarchist, building a democracy has more to do with:
1. Direct action instead of power delegation: the belief in elections prevents people from exerting change in their environment
2. End the tyranny of the majority: there is no universal truth to life and minorities should have their place in a democracy (which is not the case in our capitalist systems)
3. Decentralize institutions: centralization is always the tool of tyrants, whether republican (French-style jacobinism) or pretend-socialist (USSR-style democratic centralism)
Glad to hear it. Nihilism is rampant in these conversations and must be stomped on hard. Far too many believe that "extremely difficult" is the same as "impossible" so we should give up and do nothing.
It was clear from the rest of your comment that you aren't one of those, but I fear they would find support in your comment. Confirmation bias would lead them to emphasize the "voting doesn't matter" part and ignore your call to action.
[edit]: Rereading your comment, you're much more clear than I originally thought about all change being grass roots. Did you edit? If not it really emphasizes this point. I read "voting doesn't matter", hitting one of my hot buttons leading me to misread your comment. We're obviously in fairly close agreement, yet my response was to spout off an angry denunciation...
In the end, voting is the only thing that matters. Individual choices by a small minority of the population are going to be completely ineffectual without government setting policy so that doing the right thing is also doing the most profitable thing.
But despite you being wrong in your core point in my opinion, you're absolutely right about the method. (change your lifestyle, divest fossil, direct action, civil disobedience)
The reason that voting is useless is because voters don't care about the environment. Climate change is #11 in the list of top priorities for voters.[1]. Fix that, and then voting might make a difference. And you do that by making it clearly visible that it's important to you, and by convincing others that it's important to them.
1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-health....