In The Primary Elections, Allowing an Online Option Would Be More Democratic  A Suggestion For America's Major Political Parties The primary election process in the United States is hardly a democratic process. In any situation where more than two candidates are running, there is a chance that the winner will be someone that the majority did not want. In the presidential primaries, there is the added disadvantage that only voters in the first few states have their full choice of candidates. If, for example, Rand Paul was your preferred candidate in 2016 and you lived in Florida or numerous other states, you would never have had the opportunity to vote for the candidate you truly wanted. You may eventually even be forced to choose between two candidates that you truly don't like. Every state has their own rules for selecting delegates to their national conventions, and the rules are different in each party. In some states, especially in caucus states, your ability to vote might be far more limited. So the voter in Pennsylvania may have more power than the voter in Wisconsin. Every vote in the country should count evenly. Every citizen should be able to vote for their candidate of choice. The winner should be someone that a majority of voters can truly stand behind. In the general election, there must be extra steps taken to ensure the integrity of the voting process. For now, this can best be ensured by having voters come to a polling location. The primaries, however, are already so unfair that the benefits of leveling the playing field outweigh the benefits of in-person polling. There are ways the process could be made more democratic. Imagine never having to choose between the lesser of two evils. Imagine never feeling like you can't vote for the candidate you want because you think they can't win. Next