As for allocating more delegates to senate districts with more turnout, that makes sense: If more voters are expressing a desire by voting, they deserve more delegates.

Let’s agree that nothing beats the stupidity of the U.S.’s winner-take-all electoral college, or the ridiculous imbalance in how much each vote in the U.S. counts.

Consider this: In presidential elections, Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes; its population is about 520,000, so about 170,000 Wyoming residents are represented by each electoral vote.

Now look at California. 55 electoral votes, 38,000,000 residents. It takes 680,000 California residents to make one electoral vote.

So, while we’re splitting hairs about Texas’ delegate apportionment system, maybe we should be more worried that Wyoming voters count for 4 times as much as California voters.

(Fill in your favorite small and large states, and the results are the same.)

Just like they did to Florida and Michigan….their votes don’t count (no delegates from those states will be seated at the Dem Convention) because they defied the DNS.

And, let’s not forget about the “super-delegates”….You know, the party elites who can cast their vote for whomever they want – even if it is contrary to what the people want. After all, they know SOOO much more and are SOOO much more enlightened that us “commoners”!!

I don’t understand why the primary news agencies turn a blind eye to all of this.

We have open primaries and when we register to vote we don’t include a party affliliation. They only way to know how many Democrats are actually in each district is by basing the calculation on primary turnout. I don’t know if the Republicans do it this way — I can’t find the answer.

Got any info on the origin of the part where the number of delegates allotted is determined by recently past turnout? Sounds gerrymanderish to me.