To keep voting blue/red no matter is how you create the very situation we are in. Punishing politicians is how you get them to work for you and not for themselves and pacs.
Not voting is not "punishing" anyone, it's simply abdicating your own power. Political parties aren't businesses you can punish by boycotting their products.
Parties represent the views of those who support them by some combination of getting involved, organizing, donating, and most importantly voting in BOTH the primaries (for the one who best represents you) and the general for whoever won the primary even if it wasn't your primary choice. To wield power you have to win elections. To win you have to please those who will vote for you and if your base won't vote for you, you have to turn to the middle and right to get votes. If your base would show up for you, you could safely move left and still win (republicans always show up and vote for the R, so their party has moved more and more right).
Look what happened after Dobbs. Dem candidates used to be afraid to alienate moderates/conservatives by even mentioning abortion because they needed to get some of those voters to win, but when democrats got motivated by Dobbs and actually turned out for Dem candidates, they immediately stood up loudly for abortion rights and other rights as well, once they knew their base would show up for them. If the Dem base would continue to show up, the party would move more left on the issues, since they'd know they can win with their base and don't have to worry about alienating conservatives.
I didn't say anything about not voting. I think people should vote in a strategic way however. And that means at times you need to vote on the other side or back a different politician.
I do agree that voting in primaries is important. I think there are also things that we can do to help move away from this corrupt system. For example, having ranked choice voting.
I do think that a big problem is that people aren't willing to sacrifice some comfort in the short term for long term gain. If voting temporarily for red because blue isn't listening to you or being corrupt then when they lose they'll learn to listen to you next time. If not them, then someone else. People don't do this and will vote red or blue no matter what which results in shit politicians.
Young voters not voting in primaries is how we got into this situation.
You want politicians who represent you? Gotta vote in primaries! But the elderly, who are a smaller slice of the population, absolutely shit kick the youth in terms of voting in primaries.
Want change? Gotta vote even when it's not trending on social media.
The problem with democracy is even when you and I do the right stuff, it's all about encouraging those millions of others. And too many millions of younger voters don't have your decency/notion of the body politic/whatever your reasons for voting are.
Whew! Good thing you've got an excuse for everything, otherwise you might actually have to do something other than play-act at being a radical on social media.
The primaries being controlled by party leadership is not an "excuse" to not participate in them, it's just clarifying that that isn't a sufficient approach.
If the most vocal young voters had actually shown up for Sanders, who as far as I can tell, offered pretty much everything progressives could realistically ask for, well, we'd be in a very different position.
But, elderly people outvoted the youth ans went centrist Clinton.
Plenty of older people voted (caucused in my state) for Sanders, including me. And in the general I voted for Clinton anyway. Those who didn't are why we got trump.
Oh absolutely, no voting block is a monolith! (And thanks for caucusing for the good guys!) It's just, on average, the older voters stood by Clinton in the primaries and as they show up in the greatest numbers, she won.
The party pulled plenty of shenanigans to stop Sanders from getting the nomination. The US has overthrown governments for less. They aren't accountable processes.
Can you acknowledge that this hypothetical problem has never come up as progressive candidates have never won the majority of votes? (Because, yup, the progressive youth vote doesn't show up.)
Do you apply that standard consistently? If Kim Jong Un announces his party got 100% of the vote, are you going to say that's on his opponents for not showing up?
Also, I never said "we shouldn't vote." What I said is that the process isn't legitimate. As I mentioned, there were plenty of shenanigans that the democratic establishment used to ensure that Sanders wouldn't get the nomination, so this isn't just a hypothetical about what I can imagine or what might happen.
Which why we need a voting system that can end the duopoly without enormous sacrifice. Ranked Choice Voting can do that. If really hate the duopoly, you have no excuse not to join us and get RCV implemented everywhere. Check out FairVote for more info and to locate movements near you.