The _election_ in which you can choose between 2 people who have already been filtered out by the regime is not really a democratic election.
As someone voted for Rouhani (and would do so again), in a democratic situation he would've been my last choice.
Imagine ending up wit people like Masoumeh Alinejad-Ghomi, Reza Pahlavi, Supreme Grandma Maryam Rejavi (_Masoud Rajavi decided to become against the IR since his or his party was filtered out_) or any other weirdo.
Not so great process, but I don't think letting everyone run for presidency has much of its goodies packed with it anyway.
In either case, Iran's constitution keeps the president above so many levels that having impeachment becomes even harder. Whoever president Iran ends up with, it becomes almost impossible to replace or take them down by Majles.
I don't know, probably a role of Prime Minister will be more suited with some changes to law that person can be nailed down in wrongdoing or pressure to step down, but who knows, maybe that backfires too.
yuck, so complicated :p
edit: some typos
However, for those who are not familiar with such jargon, Alir3z4, basically says it's good thing that his Supreme leader filtered out candidates. So then the people can select from "good" choices. Otherwise people would have select X, Y and Z which are bad. The argument needs no counter-argument other than removing the jargon...
I encourage the interested to read his other comments to take a first hand look how the regime internal propaganda put together. For fabrications and their constant strive for western mainstream media propaganda machine, you may look into NIAC and all its delicate network: usually they're commentator or journalists at NYT (e.g. Farnaz Fasihi), Washington post, CNN (Trita Parsi), Independent (Negar Mortazavi), BBC, etc. That's another more fascinating story.