There is nothing intersectional about participating in and maintaining a genocidal political system. There’s no meaningful solidarity to be found in a politics that urges us to meet our oppressors where they’re at. Voting as harm reduction imposes a false solidarity upon those identified to be most vulnerable to harmful political policies and actions.

Perhaps some liberals feel when they vote they participate in a solidarity with the poor and oppressed, but this would be deluded thinking. I don't see why this negates the value of voting for other reasons, however.

The logic of voting as harm reduction asserts that whoever is facing the most harm will gain the most protection by the least dangerous denominator in a violently authoritarian system.

Is it true that some groups are endangered by one party such that voting for the other might be protective? I cannot tell if the author denies this is true, or that it doesn't do enough to protect and thus should be discarded as "too little, too late". The question is fundamentally whether voting has any benefit or political relevance at all, or whether the benefit and relevance is simply considered too little compared to the moral risk of participating.

This settler-colonial naivety places more people, non-human beings, and land at risk then otherwise. Most typically the same liberal activists that claim voting is harm reduction are found denouncing and attempting to suppress militant direct actions and sabotage as acts that “only harm our movement.” “Voting as harm reduction” is the pacifying language of those who police movements.

I don't see how voting, and particularly voting as a "harm reduction" strategy, poses greater risk than refusing to vote. Liberals suppressing direct actions and sabotage is not the same thing as voting as harm reduction, even if some of those liberals will argue for voting instead, that is not the only way to approach voting, i.e. they are clearly not mutually exclusive (you can engage in militant direct action, and vote). If anything, policing militants to not vote is some of the same policing of strategies that the liberals do, just in the other direction. I still don't see a pragmatic justification for refusing to vote, even if I see pragmatic justifications for refusing the calls to not engage in direct action or sabotage (even if sometimes activists blunder in their actions and fail to reach their political goals because they did not assess the situation properly, it is clear that militant direct action can be useful and even necessary in achieving certain political ends, see: the Magna Carta, the liberal revolutions, the Haymarket Affair, etc.).

Direct action, or the unmediated expression of individual or collective desire, has always been the most effective means by which we change the conditions of our communities.

Even if this is true (which I personally think it is), it does not demonstrate that voting isn't also a form of political action that can have consequence (and for many, is less demanding of time, energy, and risk than direct action). I don't see a pragmatic argument in this paper for refusing the strategy of voting, even if I see plenty of reasons here to do much more than vote (though as usual we are left with vague notions of "direct action" and not specific calls-to-action, which is fine but might be unsatisfying for some who might agree and want to take the next step).

What do we get out of voting that we cannot directly provide for ourselves and our people? What ways can we organize and make decisions that are in harmony with our diverse lifeways? What ways can the immense amount of material resources and energy focused on persuading people to vote be redirected into services and support that we actually need? What ways can we direct our energy, individually and collectively, into efforts that have immediate impact in our lives and the lives of those around us?

The resources put into getting out the vote are not resources that would necessarily otherwise be used for good. I would think the liberals and corporate PACs are primarily funding those get-out-the-vote campaigns, and that money isn't going to go where we want if we Just Don't Vote (if anything, I would think not voting would increase the amount of money being wasted on trying to get out the vote, as low voter turnout would on paper justify further increased funding).

Of course, the money could & should be put to better use, but the framing implies collectively refusing to vote will ensure this happens, and I don't see anything that makes this seem like a likely outcome.

What strategies and actions can we devise to make it impossible for this system to govern on stolen land?

Not too long ago socialists and anarchists collaborated in suffragist movements precisely to help increase the political power of oppressed groups like women, not just out of capitalist identity politics, but out of more radical political commitments. Voting, and getting groups like women the right to vote, are precisely some of the strategies that have been used to disrupt the patriarchal system. We should not throw out a political tool simply because it does not fill all purposes.

In our rejection of the abstraction of settler colonialism. we don’t aim to seize colonial state power but to abolish it.

We seek nothing but total liberation.

That is great, will liberation be achieved in the timeline of elections? Will it be possible to avoid the harm of refusing to vote, demotivating liberals from forming coalitions with the left by depending on leftist votes, and allowing those elections to be won by increasingly right-wing political actors? I am for total liberation, but until it is here there is a lot we care about, a lot worth defending.

What real risks of not voting if total liberation is not here soon? What pragmatic political outcome is gained by not voting? Do the benefits of not voting outweigh the risks?