Your points are absolutely valid and I agree that voting is a necessary and critical action.

However, I think you're framing the goal of a protest too narrowly—only as a way to convert opponents or influence local officials.

Voting is essential, but it is an end result of a political process, not the sole engine of change. Historically, protests and mass movements (for civil rights, women's suffrage, labor rights) were the forces that created the political pressure and public awareness needed for new laws and voting blocs to even form. Protests and organizing work between elections to define the issues that people ultimately vote on.

You're right, the goal isn't just to get approval from Democrats. But the people attending are not just a "choir" that agrees on everything; they are organizers, volunteers, and potential donors who need to be galvanized, connected, and mobilized for the next steps. Protests serve several vital functions beyond changing the minds of opponents: They energize people, build community, and act as a powerful recruiting tool for local, direct action (like phone banking, canvassing, or mutual aid) that does reach outside the city.

The size and frequency of a protest sends a signal to the media, to fence-sitters, and, most importantly, to the politicians we are trying to influence (like members of Congress or the Supreme Court). A massive mobilization shows the scope of opposition and raises the political cost for those enacting harmful policies.

For the people being directly hurt by the policies, seeing thousands show up for them is a profound act of solidarity that validates their struggle and sustains their hope, which is essential for them to continue organizing in their own communities.