But but....parties are private organizations!

I know I'm beating a dead horse given the primary is over and most have moved onto the general election, but an argument I see raised from time to time is basically the idea that parties like the democrats are private organizations and can do whatever they want. This is a horrible argument that, following it through, subverts our democratic process and leaves us with an oligarchy with a choice between two privately selected candidates, neither of which necessarily serve the interests of the people.

Yes, parties are private organizations, but should they be? Well, let's look a bit how our electoral process works. We have a first past the post system in which there will, inevitably be only two viable options to run for president. In our system, these are republicans and democrats. Come general election time, the same people making these arguments will tell people that third parties can't win, that we have to choose between these two options, and if we don't, we'll enable the choice we don't want to win.

If we allow private parties to do what they want, rig primaries, or as some have argued, be grateful for the very idea that they care somewhat what we peons think as they're under no obligation to have them and have not had them in the past, what is our political system? It's a system in which private organizations have complete control over our political system and choose our candidates and the spectrum of debate allowed in society before we can choose who we want. That's not true democracy, that's not true freedom, that's a farce. That's a joke. That's a fake choice we are afforded to give us the illusion we have real choice in our political system, without actually having it.

In a thoeretical world in which anyone can have a party and anyone can run for president, in practice be equally likely to get it, and that system that isn't first past the post, maybe an argument can be made here. Just like it's arguable that a "true" free market (nearly infinite buyers and sellers) requires less regulation than a monopoly or duopoly. But if we want to compare our system to a market situation, it's closer to something like your utilities or an ISP or something. Something that is necessary for modern society to function, but left to their own devices and relative lack of competition, will exploit their power.

As such, if we're going to have a political system based in the real world, especially ours with our current approaches to electing people, parties should not be regarded as private entities that can do what they want, take it or leave it. They require regulation. They should have to act in certain ways to share power with the people and ensure that ultimately, the process nominating candidates and choosing who wins ultimately serves the peoples' interests.

If you think parties are private organizations and can do what they want, you are supporting oligarchy. You don't believe in freedom, you don't believe in real democracy, you believe in oligarchs sanctioning the two viable options we can vote for a given elected office, and actual voter choice and preference being an afterthought. You believe in a small, elite group of people choosing your candidates before you can choose them, and them limiting your choices and the spectrum of debate we are allowed to have in this country. We either need way more parties, or the parties need to be held to strict regulation as if their nominating processes were PUBLIC elections themselves. Ideally, we should have both.