Complaints have been filed in the Democratic Party of Hawaii against member and officer Chelsea Lyons Kent. With just one little finger, she has managed to shame the party so deeply that she should be stripped of the offices to which she was rightfully elected.

Furthermore, she dared to say she will not vote for the chosen Democratic presidential nominee, and she had the audacity to publicly speak the name of a candidate from another party. Clearly, she is not the kind of person the party wants as a leader.

In related news, Oahu County Committee Vice Chair Rich Halverson has resigned his position, saying the committee administration is excessively focused on policing member behavior, and has become dictatorial. Halverson has worked passionately for the state party for many years, donating his computer skills and judgment to an organization sorely in need of both. Is he not clearly the kind of person the party wants as a leader?

I’ve read the complaints. I have my suspicions that the finger isn’t really the problem. A good argument can be made that the Democratic Party establishment has been gleefully giving Sanders supporters the finger for quite some time. And Democrats have no problem supporting, say, Republicans for local office (I’m looking at you, Ernie Martin and Charles Djou).

The problem is that the party was made to look bad. The party was embarrassed. Not embarrassed by the shameful and deceitful actions of the Democratic National Committee’s elite in pre-determining the outcome of the nominating process, no. The embarrassment was caused by a member who dared to say publicly that the process was unfair, there is no unity, and the candidate is not her choice for president.

Apparently, while it is OK for you to feel cheated by the Democratic Party, or even be cheated by the Democratic Party, it is not OK for you to say anything about it. The Democratic Party is a private club, and freedom of speech ends exactly where the line is drawn for you.

I am grateful to Chelsea. Because of her finger, you are reading this now.

Which brings us to a bit of a predicament: Free speech is kind of a big deal in the United States. Our presidential candidates, though, are selected by private clubs that do not honor the principle of free speech. They also don’t honor the principle of one person, one vote, and they don’t even feel obligated to follow the rules they create for themselves. These private clubs are unapologetic in their refusal to be governed by the rules by which our country is organized or by any rules at all. And the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that this is just fine.

So after a candidate is selected by a process that suppresses free speech, that selects a candidate based on secret criteria, that claims neutrality but provides none, and that ignores the will of its members — how will the elected official behave? Will the elected official remember that free speech is a good thing, even though their electoral success depended on it being suppressed? Will the elected official remember that each person is entitled to a single vote, even though their electoral success depended on the votes of super delegates? Will the official remember that there are consequences to failure to follow the rules, even though their electoral success depended upon the rules being ignored?

I am grateful to Chelsea. Because of her finger, you are reading this now. Her action has drawn attention to a very basic conflict in the process by which we select our presidential candidates. Do we care about this conflict, as Democrats? Do we mind that the outcome of our candidate selection process is predetermined? Do we mind that our votes for presidential candidate are only advisory?

Do we want to repress dissenting opinions so that we operate in an echo chamber? Do we think it is proper to remove people from office simply because they disagree? Is the party so weak that it can’t survive open debate over sincerely held differences of opinion? Are we really going to destroy ourselves over a finger?