That’s the point

My point is that the rulers of a city or town might not be capitalists. In smaller scale elections, people can actually have a real choice to vote for a socialist, or communist, or other similar left wing leader.

Off the top of my head (and without researching this further) simple things like minimum wage increases have happened, and while it took alot of fighting, that is accomplished by voting. As far as I know, those aren’t typically financially very good for the rich who control the government. If I am incorrect about this, please correct me.

Also, I apologize, I am really not in the mood to do a bunch of research to find examples currently, if I remember about this in the future I will, but that is, unfortunately, far from a guarantee.

Except that it has historicaly made things better, sure, not in massive scale votes, but in smaller votes? In local elections? I fully agree that protests are necessary, and they are alot of what causes positive change, but that doesn’t render voting completely useless. In the current systems that exist, capitalism does turn large votes into what is essentially a dick measuring contest. But in smaller scale, local votes there is less money being put into the system, so voting becomes more impactful.

While I agree with you, there is no harm in voting, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that it will make things better.