Just read a fairly long thread started by someone who ran one of the caucuses. They are basically similar to ranked choice voting--in the first round, they determine by formula who are the viable and not viable candidates upon grouping those that show up. Then if your candidate is not viable, you can switch to another in the second round. And then there are details on how that then becomes delegates--which is where it seems less democratic--the devil is in the details. And there are a lot of ideas for changing the rules of elections. We have already seen the results of gerrymandering and the determination that corporations are people too. And in the last election there was the disastrous result when in the last month or so, Hillary assumed she had it sewed up and shifted from trying to win the election to trying to accumulate political capital for a ground war in the mid-east by seeking a mandate--a landslide victory. And those democratic candidates who want to gain her supporters (Warren and Pete) both made ending the electoral college one of their leading stands--odd in that this is not something a president could do. And then there is changing the primary system. I think the biggest point in all of this, is that when you change the scoring system for a game, some will gain and others will lose, and it may be hard to predict how strategies will change. eliminating the electoral college system might end a small republican advantage--all those low population red states in the west would have less clout without the electoral college. This would be well less than 1% of a change. The big change would be that in the election, the biggest battles would no longer be in winner take all swing states--the battles would be for the large population states only--some of which have also been swing states. I am fairly certain that this would amplify the effect of money on campaigns, so I hope that we would not go there unless we first fix campaign financing. And then there is the idea of putting all the primaries on a single day--This would detract from our ability to see candidates over a period of time, how they hold up how they do on debates, and how well they move from one area of the country to another. The fact that the first two primaries are in rural states no doubt colors who is more likely to win. Changes are tricky, and in this polarized time, I doubt they would be made with an eye for fairness if they were to happen.