Populated centres (sic) are worth more because they are districts that have had a higher proportion of voters in the past, therefore, they are rewarded with more delegates.
What’s your point?  It was said caucuses don’t have to be at night.  That’s true.  Like I said earlier, if you want to change the rules, do it before the game starts.  It does not at all surprise me that somebody wanting to change the rules in the middle of the game supports Hillary.
You can’t please everybody.  And what’s so rough about showing up, signing a piece of paper, and then leaving?
He’s making fun of old people.  It was a joke.
Some of us can’t just take a half a day off.  Some of us can.  Regardless, you’re arguing that it’s more fair to make somebody take half a day off than to show up and sign a piece of paper.
I can understand you wanting a vote you’re ashamed of to be secret, but why would anybody have to explain their choice at a caucus?
What about Missouri, where Obama won the popular vote, and tied in delegates?  That’s just the way things work.  With states like New York, Illinois, California, and Georgia, states like Nevada, Missouri, and New Mexico don’t have enough effect to get worked up over a single allocated delegate.
Old people are getting plenty of say.  Voters older than 60 have a higher relative portion of voters than any other age group.  Of course I’m biased because I’m half your age, but if you were to put yourself in my shoes, at my age, wouldn’t you be flabbergasted with the turnout of the younger age brackets compared to the past?  Heck, even putting myself in an older person’s shoes, I’d be ecstatic that young voters, those that are going to be around in a quarter century, have finally started giving a shit about politics and how candidates effect them.
*For future reference, it’s “you’re”, a contraction for “you are”, not your.
ETA:  If you respond in complete sentences, it’ll be easier to follow my responses next time.