If in 2008 we allocated more EV for those states who supported the party of the last president in 2004, you would think that would be closer or farther from one man-one vote democracy?

Strawman, and you know it. As Grewgills pointed out, a better analogy would be basing EV votes on turnout for _any_ presidential candidate, which would indeed be closer to one man one vote. If you don't like basing EVs based on past-voting, we can always delegate them based on current voting, but at that point you may as well just base the winner on the national popular vote.

DEM HRC 50.9% BHO 47.4%

Delegates
HRC 94 delegates, BHO 99 delegates

So the one who got the most votes got the fewest delegates.

Also a strawman and you know it. You know the delegate counts cited are for the primary+caucus, and you know the percentages cites were from the primary only. Are you just desperate to defend your original criticism, or do you just think we're all that stupid?

The whole 1/3 caucus 2/3s primary breakdown is a little odd but not undemocratic.

Still, does it not bother you that Austin republicans got a bigger voice than Houston republicans, or is your outrage only directed to the left?

DEM HRC 50.9% BHO 47.4%

Delegates
HRC 94 delegates, BHO 99 delegates

So the one who got the most votes got the fewest delegates. Wasn't that a big part of the "Bush stole the 2000 election" meme from the left?

If in 2008 we allocated more EV for those states who supported the party of the last president in 2004, you would think that would be closer or farther from one man-one vote democracy?

That is far from an equivalent principal and you know it. For a closer analogy, we could look to the electoral college and base electoral college numbers on previous voter turnout rather than total state population. That could end up moving us closer to one man one vote for the presidency if turnout remained static or perhaps further away if turnout was erratic but whichever way you slice it, it does not turn out to one man one vote when deciding the R nominee, the D nominee, or the election of the eventual president. So far this cycle, judging by delegate totals relative to % of vote received, the Democrats are far closer to that standard.

Look to the vote totals, percentages, and the delegates awarded in the primary.

Dem
HRC 1,459,814...........50.9%...........65
BHO 1,358,785...........47.4%...........61

Rep
JM 709,477..................51.2%..........121
MH 523,554.................37.8%...........16
RP 69,954......................5.1%...............0
MR 27,624......................2.0%...............0

The % of Texans that voted for Clinton almost exactly matches her % of the delegate total (off by 88% of the delegates. It looks to me like the 48.8% of R Texans who voted against McCain were more disenfranchised than were any Texas democrats. If we are scoring by most voters stripped of their voice in the nominating process, then the republican way of doing things in Texas and other winner take all states is far less democratic.

All that being said, this is a rather silly pissing contest.

BTW, does it bother you that Austin republicans get a greater voice than do Houston republicans in deciding who gets the nomination?

If in 2008 we allocated more EV for those states who supported the party of the last president in 2004, you would think that would be closer or farther from one man-one vote democracy?

By the democratic party way of dividing up delegates, it is fine. Personally, I think it would be moving away from one man-one vote and putting you in a cycle of constantly looking back to the last election (where in Texas, the democrats failed to get any state wide offices for the third time in a row). I think the caucuses (republican or democrat) also move you away from the one man-one vote principle. I'm not saying the democrats can't run their nomination process anyway they want. I am saying that they have a less democratic way of doing it that the republicans.

Anyone else immediately reminded of “Blazing Saddles” by that photo?

How about "LeRoy Rodgers."

Talk to grewgills. He at least understands what I mean when I say that Austinites get the equivalent of three votes to a Houstonians one vote. You are right that each gets one vote, but one vote from an Austinite goes to getting 3 delegates and the Houstonian vote goes to 1 delegate.

And as Grewgills pointed out, that is because Austin had a larger democratic turnout than Houston did in previous elections, so instead of allocating delegates based on population of a senate district, they based it on the number of voting Democrats in the district.

This was what I was implying in my post, but unlike Grewgills, I made the assumption that you understood why it worked this way and didn't need an explanation.

Talk to grewgills. He at least understands what I mean when I say that Austinites get the equivalent of three votes to a Houstonians one vote. You are right that each gets one vote, but one vote from an Austinite goes to getting 3 delegates and the Houstonian vote goes to 1 delegate.

You are right that this is the rule (and the democrats can set up whatever system they desire), but there system is looking backwards not forward. You can defend it all you want, but even Austinite liberals here in Texas recognize how undemocratic the system is.

Grewgills,
I understand the reasoning. I think it is backward looking. If a new candidate who brings in new voters (e.g. the independent voters in Texas who have abandoned the democrats at the state level), then the party rules don't encourage the crossover candidate by prioritizing delegates to the last election voting pattern.

I agree that the republican system is not perfect. But it is closer to the general election voting system. The democratic system is much farther from the general election system. So while I agree that you can point out differences between the general election system, republican system and democratic system from a perfect ideal, that is not the point. This is a continuum and the republican system is closer to the general election system than the democratic.

James you are getting pretty darned fact challenge. Fist reporting Spitzer resigned way ahead of time, now this. I often disagree with you, but I don't think of you as someone who simply makes things up for stories. You going Fox on us?

But the false perception that Obama was running away with the contest after a series of narrow wins in small states

I'll grant you small (some medium) states (and territories), but narrow wins?
Hawaii - 76,24
Wisconsin - 58,41
DC - 75, 24
Maryland - 60, 37
Virginia - 64,35
Maine - 59,40
Louisiana - 57,36
Nebraska - 68,32
Virgin Islands - 90,08
Washington - 68,31
Alabama - 56,42
Alaska - 74,25
The smallest margin was 14 points. How big would the victories have to be for you to call them blow outs?

We don’t say that people in one town get 3 votes and those in another get 1.

Everybody in Texas gets one vote in the primary, nobody gets 3. Moreover, Texas went out of their way to allocate the same delegate/voter ratio across the state, most don't do that. So they are closer to one man one vote that most.

You may not like the EV system, but it is how we as a country have set up our democracy to balance big state vs small state interests.

You may not like the Texas democratic primary allocation system, but it is how they as a state party set up their democratic primary to balance high-turnout vs low-turnout areas.

Yes. We don't say that people in one town get 3 votes and those in another get 1. At the end of the election for that state, the people in the state have collectively chosen one candidate. That is a reflection of how the countries EV system works. You may not like the EV system, but it is how we as a country have set up our democracy to balance big state vs small state interests.