Democrats vs. Republicans

Many Democrats have been coming out in the wake of the GOP caucus in Washington claiming that in the GOP, it is the "elite" and "party bosses" who keep down the "average voter." The reasoning is hard to follow; they say that because the delegates are not committed to any candidate, that the delegates somehow become "elite" or "party bosses" and no longer represent "average voters."

Hm.

Let's see.

In the Republican Party here in Washington, no one is required to pay dues. In Washington's Democratic Party, people who wish to be members, who are not PCOs, are required (by the "elite" "party bosses") to pay dues.

In the Republican Party, the precincts decide for themselves on what basis to elect their delegates. In the Democratic Party, the precincts are required (by the "elite" "party bosses") to select delegates based on presidential preference.

In the Republican Party, if you choose not to participate in the caucus, you can still have your voice heard by voting in the primary. in the Democratic Party, you are required (by the "elite" "party bosses") to participate in the caucus to have your voice heard.

In the Republican Party, delegates selected by caucus or primary account for 95 percent of the national convention delegates, with the remaining 5 percent "superdelegates." In the Democratic Party, delegates selected by caucus or primary account for only 80 percent of the national convention delegates, with the remaining 20 percent "superdelegates" (the "elite" "party bosses").

I actually don't mind the Democratic system at all. It apparently works for them, and nothing above is intended to be a criticism of that system; it is, rather, a criticism of those Democrats who claim to be more independent of the "elite" "party bosses" than the Republicans.