It's interesting to think that the Democrats peculiar rules will most likely the the determining factor in picking their nominee.
For example, if Democrats (like Republicans) had all winner-take-all states, Hillary Clinton would be in the lead right now. Her victories in California and New York would have essentially guaranteed that.
Texas' rules for apportionment is even more unusual. Delegates are broken down into senatorial districts, and the delegates are proportional to how the Democratic presidential candidate in the last two elections performed in your state senate district.
Because George W. Bush did fairly well among Hispanics in Texas, the large Hispanic population areas in West and South Texas don't have as many delegates as areas with high African-American populations. This, of course, hurts Hillary and helps Obama.
But while the system rewards the voters for good behavior (and punishes bad behavior), it seems to unfairly or arbitrarily punish the candidates. I could say the same thing about not seating the Michigan and Florida delegates ...
If Hillary loses Texas tonight, it will be a bit ironic that George W. Bush had something to do with that ...