by William Skink

There will be much celebrating over the election results in France. Macron’s victory sends a strong message to the rest of Europe that the European Union is not dead, yet. If Macron had lost, the stage was set to once again blame Russia for meddling in the democratic processes of its western opponents.

Closer to home, Montanans who still believe in Democracy have a chance to send a message to Trump and the billionaire oligarchs Russia allegedly enthroned by voting for cowboy poet Quist in Montana’s special election.

Rob Quist is running as a Democrat, and Democrats are supposed to be invested in running fair, transparent elections. It’s only those evil Republicans engaged in systemic voter suppression, right?

Not so, say angry Bernie Bros. All those emails that came to light thanks to a leak (not Russian hacking) exposed the rigging of the primary against Bernie, and now the people who gave Bernie money with the expectation the process to elect the Democratic presidential candidate was a fair and impartial process want the DNC to pay, in court.

What emerged this week in a court room in Florida provides the clearest insight into how little the Democratic establishment gives a shit about Democracy. While trying to maintain the primaries weren’t weighted in Hillary’s favor, the DNC defense is trying to assert it could pick a candidate in a cigar-filled backroom if it wanted to. I wonder what Democracy-loving Democrat supporters will think of this demoralizing admission?

Here is the ugly truth that will probably be willfully ignored by the party faithful:

“People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee—nominating process in 2016 were fair and impartial,” Beck said. “And that’s not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that’s what the Democratic National Committee’s own charter says. It says it in black and white. And they can’t deny that.” He added, “Not only is it in the charter, but it was stated over and over again in the media by the Democratic National Committee’s employees, including Congresswoman Wassermann Schultz, that they were, in fact, acting in compliance with the charter. And they said it again and again, and we’ve cited several instances of that in the case.”

Later in the hearing, attorneys representing the DNC claim that the Democratic National Committee would be well within their rights to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.” By pushing the argument throughout the proceedings of this class action lawsuit, the Democratic National Committee is telling voters in a court of law that they see no enforceable obligation in having to run a fair and impartial primary election.

The DNC attorneys even go so far as to argue that the words “impartial” and “evenhanded”—used in the DNC Charter—can’t be interpreted by a court of law. Beck retorted, “I’m shocked to hear that we can’t define what it means to be evenhanded and impartial. If that were the case, we couldn’t have courts. I mean, that’s what courts do every day, is decide disputes in an evenhanded and impartial manner.”

If this is what establishment Democrats think about democracy, why should I vote for any candidate with a “D” by their name? The party refuses to change, which means these weaselly partisans will continue perpetuating the failure that produced Trump and keeps the red tide rolling across state legislatures.

Rob Quist needs my vote, and he’s not going to get it. If the party refuses to change, then breaking this political duopoly is the only way for the system to rectify the rot that has taken hold.