Progressive voters in the United States find themselves in a frustrating bind every election cycle. They are forced to choose between staying home because the Democratic nominee does not represent their ideological views, or ‘holding their nose’ and supporting the least bad option.

Why is this the case? Two reasons. First, we effectively lack a multi-party system. Yes, third parties do exist, but they have little institutional power and rarely garner more than a percent here or there in national elections. Thus, voting for such parties is more of a symbolic act than a meaningful way of shaping electoral outcomes.

Second, the ostensibly ‘left-leaning’ party in the United States, the Democratic Party, shows insufficient interest in onboarding a progressive agenda. Instead, the Democratic Party relies on political extortion: so long as Democrats promise to be infinitesimally better than the conservative Republican Party (usually on social issues), Democrats need only campaign on, “you have to vote for us, or you’ll get the Republicans.” It is this trick that allows the Party to easily placate its corporate masters and retain reliable voters. In the words of Chris Hedges, it explains why you can never vote against Goldman Sachs.

Thus, the age-old dilemma of whether progressives should build a third party and fight from the outside or try to reform the Democratic Party into a more progressive institution from the inside, appears to be nothing more than a choice between two equally unhelpful options. We must seek alternatives.

We might start by recognizing the deep irony in how political power operates: things must become impossible in order for others to become possible. Take climate change as an example. Legislation designed to combat climate change will only become possible when it becomes impossible for politicians to say that climate change isn’t real. That is, only after social pressure has risen to a boiling point on a given issue, such that politicians have no option but to recognize its reality, will the domino of action finally tip.

This is why we see social movements struggle for very long periods of time, to then be followed by very swift action. The legalization of gay marriage, to some, felt like it happened overnight — but it didn’t. After decades of mobilization, it finally became impossible for politicians to deny gay individuals the same rights as straight individuals. Once that climate of impossibility finally set it in, the possibility of legalization opened up, and reform quickly followed. We are seeing the same thing happen with marijuana right now.

What does this mean for the electoral bind that entraps progressive voters in America? It’s simple: we have to find more powerful mechanisms to make it impossible for Democratic Party officials to disagree with our agenda. One such mechanism that we might consider is the creation of a voter’s union.

What is a union? It’s an organization that utilizes collective power to demand concessions from institutions. Unions are obviously most commonly associated with the workplace. Because employers are semi-dependent on employees, employees do in fact have some power to make demands from those who govern them in the workplace. However, as we all know, employers are not dependent on any one employee. Instead, their dependence increases with every marginal employee. Thus, when employees approach management not as individuals but as a collective, their power to negotiate concessions grows considerably.

Are political parties not similarly dependent on voters? While political parties are not dependent on any one voter, they too have growing dependence with every marginal voter. This structural dependence, if exploited by robust collective mobilization, could be a conduit for Progressive voters to finally wield power inside the Democratic Party. Just as unions have been successful in negotiating concessions from their corporate overlords, so too progressives could demand policy commitments from Democratic politicians.

Imagine millions of voters forming a union on the following premise: the Democratic Party must adhere to a list of demands or the membership might ‘strike’ at the ballot box (i.e. not cast a single vote for the Party). Imagine that membership is spread across the country, with sizable numbers in contested districts. Imagine that membership is well organized and is committed to not ‘crossing the picket line’ (i.e. voting when the union has called for a strike). Would such an organization not have incredible influence over the Party? Could such a union not help to make things impossible which in turn would make the realization of a Progressive agenda more likely?

The progressive movement tends to place a great deal of value in what they do. Canvassing, phone banking, volunteering, donating, and so on. Perhaps it is time for the movement to focus more on what we don’t do. Voting for people who will not represent us. Ironically, it seems that, in certain instances, choosing not to act is the most powerful mechanism for change. Perhaps we should give that a try. The formation of a voter’s union functions like a third party by applying pressure from the outside. But it doesn’t give in to the futility of trying to replace bad Democrats with good ones. Electing progressive Democrats simply won’t be enough. They have too little power inside the Party infrastructure. A union of voters behind them, however, might provide the fire power that brings about real change.

We have seen the Democratic Party, and its satellite institutions, try to shame voters who claim to be Bernie or Bust. “You have to vote blue no matter who!” they say. At some point, it is necessary to say enough with the extortion. We have the right to vote, but also to not vote. We are tired of having to support candidates that offer us nothing, and worse, candidates that promise not to tackle the very real threats promising global catastrophe, like climate change. The Democratic Party establishment fears Bernie or Bust, and they should. Let’s mobilize and formalize that power with the creation of a voter’s union. In so doing, we can build a list of demands and push the Party into accepting (at least some of) them. A million plus voter’s union would have the power to get candidates to sit down at a negotiating table. Progressives sorely need that kind of power if we are ever going to successfully materialize our agenda.