I've often advocated that states start with no more delegates than electoral votes. This would be about 1/5th of the delegates awarded. The next 1/5th would be awarded on the basis of numbers of congressman, senators, state legislatures, governors, etc. The final 3/5th would be based on electoral votes cast for the GOP in November during the last half dozen or so election cycles.
Yes, technically, this formula could mean that a small state like Wyoming could gt more delegates than one like Massachusetts. Unfair, you say? I'd agree, but unfair to Wyoming which consistently delivers three electoral votes to the GOP every cycle to zero for Massachusetts.
Want more delegates? Then deliver in November or, if you are split personality state like us in Pennsylvania, then split up your electoral votes like they do in Maine and Nebraska.
IIRC, this was also a problem in 1952, with regard to Repub delegates from southern states that were solidly Democrat at the time.
I think it was key to Eisenhower getting the nomination away from Taft. There was a big floor fight over it at the convention.
Henry Cabot Lodge II was instrumental in it, and later boasted in Vietnam (where he was ambassador) that he had no problem with rigging elections there, since he'd done it in the US.