THe optics of the super-delegates wasn't good. It appeared that even though Sanders was holding his own in contested primaries, Dem insiders appointed by Clinton power-brokers had the real power and #s to nominate Clinton. From that article the S-Ds remain, but they can't vote unless their is a 2nd ballot.
This is the crack in the Democrats armor. They worry about optics while the GOP doesn’t give a shit how something “looks.”
That’s how we lost the majority in 2010.
Bernie got his ass pretty well kicked in the primary even if his folks bothered to show up in Vegas he would have lost... Superdelegates had shit to do with the result but it “looked bad.”
This is my opinion derived from my perspective gained by my experience in the Democratic Party from local committeeman to contract op for the DNC.
I'm just a voter and an ocassional check writer but I didn't like the SD advantage. It looked like the fix was in and I supported Hillary (half-heartedly in '16) and understood the edge it gave her.
We heard early on that Clinton had a huge delegate lead before the primary season started. Its possible with a more level playing field and the absence of this well publicized advantage that more primary voters might have exercised their franchise, and uncommitted delegates might have kept a more open mind IF (big if) they knew their respective state primary was already seeding 30% of the delegates to Clinton. people like to back winners.
I just want fair election. I'll let Republicans dive into the muck. And if they get caught cheating people at the polls, I'd throw them in jail.
Just my 2 scents.