Depending on the stakes, yes. It is categorically better than not voting at all.

There is still the spoiler effect to consider, which may make voting third party a worse strategy in the complex, blind game that elections are. In elections where that isn’t as big of a risk, it’s a good way to indicate dissatisfaction with the status quo and the parties on offer. If there is a particularly convincing third party that many agree on, it also communicates what people do want.

In presidential elections, in a country where the president already had so much power even before this whole shitshow, when one candidate is a much greater threat to the basic feasability of resistance, it’s a dangerous gamble, risking much for a fairly slim chance at an all-or-nothing victory.

FPTP is one of the many things that are fucked up, but not every election has that kind of impact, and particularly if you’re in states where one party is so dominant that the spoiler effect is negligible anyways, it may be the more valuable choice.

Agreed on all points. It’s kinda like a robbery – you probably won’t arbitrarily hand a random stranger your wallet, but if they point a knife, things look different.

Though in this case, it’s the robber barons getting mugged by their victims.

If, for whatever reason, the police collectively decides to no longer enforce the commands of those in power and no other group steps up to violently defend the status quo, a peaceful revolution in the form of civil disobedience would be conceivable.

Getting to that point without some measure of violence is what I believe to be unlikely – not impossible, mind you, and I very much hope for it, but it’s quite likely that an attempt to create such a consensus would (at least initially) be violently suppressed just as violent resistance would.

Even if it is achieved, the new society will need to guard itself against opportunistic egoists seeking to exploit the new power vacuum. Here too there may be at least an initial period of violence until that new dynamic is clear.

As long as there are people willing to hurt others for their own benefit, they will have to be fought.

But we should try to fight as little as possible.

The success of diplomacy and peaceful protest hinges on the existence of a credible threat that the alternative (war and riots, respectively) will be worse. Even if a (mostly) peaceful solution should be found, I suspect there will have to be some measure of violence to get that point across.

As others point out, the elites won’t go down quietly, and as long as there are bootlicks willing to fight on their behalf, they’ll rather let their bootlicks die than make concessions.

So while I don’t think violent revolutions are good for their own sake, they may be a necessary evil for good ends.

Revolutions stand or fall with public support. Voting is the most visible way to establish public sentiment. People like to quote that only a third of the US actually elected Trump, but do we have a clear idea of just how many oppose him, if so many voters apparently never expressed their opinion in any measurable way?

Doing nothing and complaining on the internet is useless. Doing something is scary. If you knew you had your community at your back, wouldn’t you feel more confident to step up?

You’re right that people need to know that voting won’t be enough, but it’s still important in order to communicate the public opinion that separates a revolution from a coup.

“I have a cake (in my possession)” as opposed to “I’m having / I had a cake (for a meal)”. Perhaps the less ambiguous phrasing would be “…and keep it too” – the nuance is probably academic at this point – but proverbs tend to be stubborn.