the US’ weird prohibition of parties deciding their own candidates by their own rules is better than the alternative while we have structurally a two-party system. much better would be a multiparty system with free entry in which political parties are free to organize and discipline as they like.

(the UK is a case in point. yes, the Labor Party was free to lock out Corbyn. but was that great? Britain also is structurally a two-party system — more than here there are 3rd parties, Duverger’s is a tendency not a law — but its FPTP elections make 3rd parties spoilers and create a strong bias…

in favor of big incumbent parties. under those circumstances, I don’t think it’s a plainly better situation when party insiders and leadership can lock out a popular former leader. it’s not plainly worse, either. there are tradeoffs. but the better solution is free entry + cohesive parties.)