The Washington State 2016 presidential election story makes the mechanism of caucuses seems less democratic than primaries. It seems the Democratic party caucuses, rather than the later popular vote in Washington state primary elections, controlled delegates at the Democratic National Convention. At least in Washington State, some votes matter more than others.
In March of 2016, the state Democratic Party held caucus, where Bernie Sanders won almost 73% of the caucuses' votes, and 74 delegates were "pledged" to Sanders, as opposed to 27% of caucuses' votes and 27 delegates pledged to Hillary Clinton.
Then in May a "non-binding presidential primary", where Clinton received 52% of the popular vote, and Sanders 48%. However being non-binding there were no delegates pledged as a result.
In a report of the roll call at the DNC convention in July 2016, it seems clear that the Washington State delegation honored the caucus results, rather than the primary election results. While this did not alter the convention's outcome, it seems like caucuses (like the electoral college) has the potential of distorting election results, permitting political tactics to override the popular vote.
Would changing the Democratic party rules regarding caucuses make an improvement similar to the elimination of the electoral college?