Learned that first hand in Minnesota Caucus's. And later the Primary and Election Rules we were bound by. All in a effort to try to make the whole process inclusive. It works.

and they vary a little from state to state.

living in Utah. Zero apportionment. Winner take all. And thus you see what that State looks like. A Patriarchal all White Dominate single Party State.

Seriously, it's 2020, not 1990. They could increase their readership if they replaced that atrocious green background color.

If you want the information, you'll get it. If you don't care about details, you probably don't care if you have the information.

That site, though, is just about the best resource there is for delegate count information. It's a serious website. Sure, it has a funky design, but there's more information there than you think, if you follow links on the site. It's been around for a long time, and is an outstanding resource.

It is a wall of words, though, and the color scheme isn't the best choice. I don't care. I refer to that site constantly during election season.

There is no other site on the internet where I can see the details of every state's Democratic Party process. It's all there. It beats trying to run down the information by visiting individual states' Democratic Party website, for sure.

Thanks for the link. I will bookmark it.

Lots of work, I expect it would take.

Safer, too, than trusting a stranger with their tons and tons of data. I've thought of putting a similar GOTV site together, although my plan was nothing as extensive as what these folks have put together! It is an awesome amount of material.

But there are more tasteful ways to convey their theme. It just seems odd to me that they put all this effort into the data, but then don't care enough to make the experience pleasant for their visitors so they actually read the site.

the two guys who operate greenpapers.com did the same thing, but on paper - green printer paper, as it turned out. So, when they moved to the internet, they adopted a similar green color for the background of the site.

Here's a link to a Boston University newspaper that tells the history of greenpapers.com. It's a site that is heavily used by journalists for information on delegate counts:

http://www.bu.edu/articles/2016/the-green-papers-political-website

There's also a short Wikipedia article about the site with some other links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Green_Papers

Too bad they are so proud of their atrocious background. I'm sure that people who need this info use the site regardless of how unfriendly it is, but just think if the site owners used the site to engage and educate new voters as well. Young people, scratch that, MOST people are not going to bother to read anything at their site. Also, green printer paper wasn't lime green. I'll bet it would be easy to find a vintage printer paper background that is easy on the eyes. I'm amazed that they would put this kind of time and effort into this and then not give a shit if they drive their visitors away over background color. Oh well.

Mostly, it's used by journalists who are looking for the most accurate information.

I don't think the guys who run it care all that much about how much traffic it gets. I suspect they truly don't give a shit what anyone thinks of the site design. New voters aren't going to use the site. Almost nobody who isn't a crazed election aficionado uses the site. It's run to provide information and that's it. If you want the information, it's there. People who don't care that much, which is most people, will go somewhere else and read something else.

I admire the effort those two guys put into this, not the site design. It's about as far from a commercial site as it can be.

That guy is a real piece of work

Probably since you recommended it in 2016. Thanks again and as always.

I can't remember how I found that. Probably a google search for Democratic delegates or something like that.