+1. Organise and vote — don’t just do one.

The rubber stamp Congress for the left in the US gave you the great society reforms, and Medicaid is still in place as a safety net for a huge number of Americans, and has been for 60 years. Even if the system is imperfect, it’s had a massive positive influence on the lives of Americans who’ve suffered under the current medical system. The point is that there hasn’t been consistent support for democrats over a number of elections since — Obama, Clinton and Biden is all there’s been over the past 60 years, so it’s clear that the American electorate that votes, both inside and outside the Democrat party, prefers republicans or republican-lites. So you end up with republican-lite or fascists because of apathy.

For a UK example, until recently the triple lock on pensions has sat untouched for far too long because it was considered electoral suicide to try and prise money from pensioners grasp because they vote consistently, despite broad consensus that it was a good idea.

Also voting is a way to shift the Overton window. If the left wing party has a thumping majority, those in the party with more radical views (like being against genocide /s) actually have room to manoeuvre and pressure their leader, or even to split off and form their own party.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

This is it. You can do harm reduction in voting for the least-worst feasible candidate, while organising/protesting on issues you disagree with them on.

E.g. In the UK, Labour is often poor on queer rights issues, but comparatively massively better than the tories/reform would be, not to mention economic and welfare policies. So I vote Labour, and attend pro-trans rights protests and criticise Labour and their stance on this issue.

This is the definition they are discussing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game

Chess is not, by this definition, a solved game.