
If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.






The words of Emma Goldman, “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal,” strike with the force of disillusionment born of long struggle. She speaks not to dismiss the yearning for justice, but to reveal how those who hold power guard it fiercely, allowing only that which does not truly threaten their throne. Her words are a cry of warning: that voting, though noble in appearance, can be reduced to ritual if the structures of power remain unshaken.
In the ancient spirit, this is no rejection of the people’s voice, but a recognition of how rulers often cloak control in the garments of liberty. They may allow the casting of ballots, but if the system is bound by corruption, wealth, or manipulation, then the people’s voice is muted. Goldman, an anarchist and activist of the early 20th century, had seen this truth in her own time: strikes crushed, dissent silenced, and governments declaring themselves free while stifling the will of the masses.
Consider the story of the women’s suffrage movement. For centuries, women were barred from the polls under the claim that their voices were unnecessary or dangerous. When suffragists demanded the right to vote, they were mocked, imprisoned, and beaten. Why? Because in that moment, voting truly threatened to change something—it meant half of society would at last be heard. Thus, history itself proves Goldman’s point: power resists transformation until it can no longer hold back the tide.
Yet her words also contain a paradox. If voting were utterly powerless, it would not have been so fiercely denied to the oppressed. From freed slaves in America to the colonized peoples of Africa and Asia, rulers bent every effort to suppress the ballot, because they feared what might happen if the people spoke as one. The struggle for suffrage across the ages reveals both the danger and the promise of the vote: it is potent only when joined with courage, vigilance, and action beyond the ballot box.
So let this wisdom endure: do not be lulled into thinking that voting alone is salvation, nor be fooled into believing it is nothing. It is a tool, sharpened or dulled by the structures around it. Goldman’s words are a summons to vigilance, to remember that freedom requires more than casting a ballot—it requires struggle, sacrifice, and the relentless demand that power serve the people, not merely placate them. For only then will the vote be more than ritual; only then will it truly change the world.
AVLe Anh Vuong
Emma Goldman’s perspective raises an important point about the limitations of electoral politics. If voting truly had the power to reshape society, would those in charge let it happen? Does this imply that the political system is designed to prevent real change and keep people distracted? What other avenues for change might be more effective in creating lasting societal transformation?
TPNguyen Thien Phuong
This quote challenges the idea that voting is the most powerful way to create change. If voting truly changed anything, would the people in power allow it to happen? It makes me wonder whether we should be focusing more on activism, direct action, or other means of societal change that might be less controlled by the system. Is voting just a way to keep people pacified?
KYKim Yyy
Goldman’s quote seems to suggest that voting is more of a distraction than a tool for real political power. If voting truly had the power to change things, wouldn’t those in power work to suppress it? How do we reconcile this view with the idea that voting is a fundamental right and tool for social progress? Can meaningful change ever come from within a system that may be inherently resistant to it?
Xxiao
Emma Goldman’s quote expresses a deep skepticism about the effectiveness of voting in changing the system. It implies that if voting could actually lead to real change, the powers that be would take measures to stop it. Does this mean that the political system is designed to keep the status quo in place? Are we being misled into thinking that voting alone can lead to meaningful change?