So the Superdelegates can not only override the primary voters, they can also override the Convention?
That doesn't sound very Democratic.
That doesn't sound very Democratic.
No:
(1) Superdelegates cannot override the rest of the convention (delegates selected by caucuse and primaries) on nominations, since the 2016 rules change that removed their first-round voting rights in the nomination vote unless the difference between the top two candidates in pledged delegates is greater than the number of superdelegates.
(2) DNC members are a subset of superdelegates, they aren't the same group.
(3) currently (before the change), the National Committee can update the bylaws, and the Convention can update the bylaws; allowing the Committee to reverse anything done by the Convention (because the convention issues one every for years, the reverse is not, in practice, true). This just stabilizes that by requiring ratification of Convention-initiated amendments to the Bylaws by the Committee, similar to what is already done for Amendments to the Charter (the DNC requires a 2/3 vote, however, to unilaterally amend the Charter.)
Since the DNC could already reverse the Convention, this doesn't change the substantive distribution of power, which is probably why this has gotten zero coverage since August 5 when the proposals were announced for the agenda for the summer meeting, and despite the Intercept headline, the actual issues everyone quoted in the article had weren't about the substance but about the manner in which the DNC staff were communicating with DNC members leading up to the vote.
This is a nothing-burger of a change.
It’s a way for a private political party to nominate its candidate. Nowhere else in the world does a party go to a half baked election to decide who a political party should nominate.
The UK is shifting/shifted to this model, and is the best illustration of how much worse it is, with the quality of candidates having dropped dramatically from what the UK used to have across both Labour and Tory parties.