The headline isn’t deceptive. Giving voters a choice of pre-approved options isn’t democracy, it’s veiled oligarchy.
Yes, the current system is imperfect. A slate of “normal” candidates loses by splitting the majority vote, giving a plurality to the outlier nutcase. Would be best at this point if the “normal” candidates were to huddle and decide which objectively has the best chance, the remainders checking out lest the nut win. Other solutions welcome for consideration, but most quickly prove little more than handing power to an unelected oligarchy.
The current system isn’t completely broken either. It’s how we got Trump: he was the outlier, and the remainder fragmented the majority vote so none could win against him (nor could they have won against Hillary). I’m not convinced Bernie isn’t the right choice for Democrats: fact is he IS the best embodiment of the party’s values, and the remainder are unelectable (vs Trump) twits. Bernie can’t win the general, but actually is the Left’s best chance to.
The problem with “Democratic Socialism” (which the article is premised on) is: who decides what goes on the ballot? if all options are practically indistinguishable, being whatever The Party would be happy with, why bother with voting?
That's also how we wound up with McCain in 2008.