I don't like proportional distribution of delegates by Congressional district. As we found out, in Iowa and Nevada, it's fundamentally undemocratic. In Iowa, John Edwards came in second in the popular vote, yet Hillary Clinton won more delegates, despite coming in third. In Nevada, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, yet Barack Obama may end up with more delegates. The system functions on the same premise as the Electoral College, which makes some individual votes more important than others. The nation may be a republic rather than a democracy, but the Democratic Party shouldn't be.
Looking at the California polls, it seem that the popular vote may be very close. How that will translate into delegates will be interesting to watch. Hopefully, the percentages will closely track, but some Obama supporters have been presuming he will do better in the delegate count than in the actual vote count. I think the opposite may happen. Throwing out Michigan and Florida, which did not benefit from normal campaigning, the states that went for Obama did so by large margins. Clinton won her states by solid, but much closer margins. It seems plausible that the same dynamic will pertain in the Congressional districts of California. For example, Obama may rack up huge victory margins in the greater Bay Area, while Clinton may win by smaller margins in greater Los Angeles and San Diego and the San Joaquin Valley. If that's true, and the mountains and Northern California break roughly evenly, Obama may win the popular vote yet come out behind, in delegates. If so, the Obama campaign, and all those Obama supporters, who tried to spin Nevada as a victory may have a hard time explaining their California celebrations.