Saying that Democrats are ruining democracy probably sounds like hyperbole. Maybe it is, but it’s the perspective I’ve gained over the past few years. Especially given this recent interview with Jill Biden. Watching both Democrats and Republicans conduct primaries it’s clear that things aren’t being done the same way anymore.

This isn’t an article to dig into the DNC for “rigging” their primaries, even though I certainly could make that case. Today, I’m here to lodge a complaint with you. Yes, you the person reading this.

Why do you vote? Why do you vote the way that you do? These are important questions to ask yourself and, lately, I feel like many Democrats don’t have the answers. Somehow a massive shift in why Democrats vote occurred between 2008 and 2016. Suddenly, instead of voting based on who they liked the best, or the best policy, Democrats starting arguing over who had the best chance to win the general.

Maybe you’re reading this and you don’t see the problem with that. Maybe you’re thinking that isn’t the case. So I’ll explain both to you.

As I mentioned previously, in a recent survey Democrats stated that the most important quality in a candidate was their ability to beat Donald Trump. Even more important than agreeing with their policy. This is incredibly destructive thinking.

The goal of the Democrats (and any political party for that matter) shouldn’t be to defeat another party. It should be to help the American people. That’s literally their job. Stop focusing so much attention on Republicans, and show the American people that helping them is your number one priority.

Of course, different Democrats will naturally disagree on the best way to do that, but that’s the whole point of a primary. Allow the candidates to express their vision for the country, and the voters will pick their favorite. How are we living in a world where over 60% of the population is in favor of legalizing marijuana, and the front runner is too afraid to take a stance on it?

Here’s where the problems switch from the DNC to the every day voters. When debating the merits of candidates, Democrats have suddenly filled their conversations with talk of which candidate could beat Trump, instead of debating policy. People are even frequently saying they like candidates, but won’t vote for them because they “can’t win”.

To illustrate the problems this causes we can look back at the 2016 primaries. As I mentioned before, they were fraught with controversy, but I want to focus on the votes. Bernie Sanders won 23 states in the Democratic primary. Democrats lost 13 of those states in the general, more than 50 percent. Not to mention that one of Maine’s three electoral votes went to Trump.

Of course, maybe this is all just coincidence, but given the number of people still complaining about it to this day, it’s safe to say more than a few voters were lost by not nominating Sanders. Sanders was considered a “longshot”, which may have scared people into not voting for him in the primaries, giving Clinton the nomination.

Here’s an article from Vox in 2016, interviewing some political scientists about whether or not Sanders could win in the general . It seems laughably silly to me reading it now. What these experts seem to miss is that political opponents will attack your positions no matter what they are. Shying away from real change to try to appeal to everyone, just makes you appealing to no one.

If you don’t think all this is important, you just need to look across the aisle. Donald Trump was considered the longest of longshots in 2016. Most of the discussion around him from established Republicans was about how he could never win in the general. Yet, it seems like when Republicans went to the polls they weren’t trying to guess who had the best chance at winning the general, they voted for the candidate they liked the best. That candidate went on to win the general.

If you really must know, I already wrote an article about which candidates are most likely to beat Trump here. However, there is a much simpler answer. The candidate who is most likely to win is the one who the most people like. If everyone just votes for the candidate they like the best, that’s who will get the nomination.

So when someone like Jill Biden tells you that you should vote for her husband, even if he isn’t your favorite candidate, she’s dead wrong. Telling people to vote against their own interests is the most undemocratic thing I’ve seen in a long time. Remember, your party is meant to represent what it’s people want, not the other way around. Never let someone tell you that you shouldn’t vote for what you want.

Plus, nominating someone who is seen as an underdog can help you get more votes. Everyone loves an underdog. Trump was an underdog. Even Obama started off his campaign way behind Clinton. When you nominate these “sure thing” candidates, people are less motivated to vote. Seeing poll after poll say that Clinton’s victory was all but assured made Democrats feel like they didn’t even need to vote, and increased Republican’s conviction that absolutely everyone needed to vote.

Who knows, maybe if the DNC nominates an underdog they can shed the reputation of rigging their primaries. Maybe they can give hope to those who feel like neither party cares about them anymore. Andrew Yang certainly does that for me, and many others.

But, this article isn’t about me telling you who to vote for. This article is telling you to vote for who you truly believe in. Because at the end of the day, and I say this fully aware that my last article argued who had the best chance, no one truly knows who could win. What we do know, is that if everyone drops these pretenses and just votes for who they like the best, that is what Democracy in action looks like. That’s what a party named after that idea should be advocating for.