Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattrighetti | Hacker News Reader

They’re indirectly elected through national governments and parliament. That’s different from being directly elected by citizens. Being appointed by elected politicians doesn’t make someone directly accountable to voters. Citizens don’t vote for commissioners, and it’s much harder for voters to remove or reward them based on their policies.

View on HN

Ao is the prime minister in any country that adopts parliamentarism.

I am still to see as many people getting riled up about how those countries are not democratic.

The candidates for prime minister and similar positions tend to be front and center during an election.

From what I remember the head of the european commission was picked from a group of people that weren't even up for election after the official candidates that were paraded around during an EU wide election where dismissed.

Again, not a single word I’ve posted says “it’s un-democratic”

Ao?

Straw man... voters in parliamentary democracies generally are fully aware of whom the prime minister is going to be if the party wins.

Nobody really knows or cares who is going to be appointed to the commission since domestic issues always completely over shadow it.

The EU Council is composed of heads of government of each member state.

Are you really trying to imply that voters don't know who the fuck their heads of government are?

I mean, this is a rhetorical question. I don't really expect people who keep repeating misinformation about EU to be arguing in good faith.

That's not the point. Voters generally can't vote for their preferred EU policies because they come bundled with internal policies which are obviously much more important for voters.

It's a bit like with replacing senators in the US with state governors (except actually worse since US is way more centralized and local and federal parties are much more aligned).

If voters actually voted for council representatives directly they could actually influence it in meaningful ways. Now e.g. in Germany a CDU voter won't suddenly switch to AFD or Greens just because they prefer their stance on Chat Control (or whatever else).

Honestly, this is a criticism I agree with. I really would prefer if the EU councilor for my country was either voted for (or even indirectly picked by the EU parliament members for my country). At least this would ensure some sort of alignment with EU policies I care about.

The fact that the head of state is on EU council sort of sucks, because when I vote on national elections people are looking at internal issues, and EU policy is more of an afterthought.

But that doesn't align with morons claiming that those are "unelected officials" or that the EU is somehow undemocratic.

So is the US president (Electoral College), the UK PM (Parliament) etc etc, yet you never hear complaints here from the same types.

Their opposition is ideological, democracy is just an excuse because their true views would be too unsavory to say out loud.

> So is the US president (Electoral College)

It has never happened, but if there once would be enough faithless electors to swing the election (choosing a different president than what people voted for) it would be a huge scandal and it would be widely condemned as undemocratic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

(Did this not happen in 2016? I understood the absolute aggregate count in the popular vote and the majority of the electoral college differed.)

I mean, if the electoral college would have enough faithless electors to swing the result away from the president whom the majority of the electors had pledged to vote for.

There has been so far 5 elections where the electoral vote chose a different president than what the popular vote count would have chosen. But this is a different thing than what I was talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...

In the US the President explicitly does not represent the people. It is the President of the States and only the States vote for President. Until the 20th century people weren't even involved in selecting who their State voted for.

Many people are confused by the fact that only States can vote for President. The most a person's vote can do is provide input into their State's votes for President.

And the EU Council represents the governments.

The criticism is about accountability, not whether the system is democratic.

The UK pm and the POTUS are both ultimately accountable through elections. In the UK, a general election can change the government. In the US, people vote specifically for presidential electors, even if it’s through the Electoral College.

The EU commission is different. People don’t vote for commissioners or the president, and they can’t vote them out in the same direct way.

Im having a hard time following what is making the US presidental system different from the EU commission?

the US president is appointed by politicians who are elected, and the only accountability mechanism for president is impeachment, which is again, indirect via elected politicians.

The EU Commission does the bidding of the elected EU Council. The Commission is sort of a civil service.

100%. This is why many of us have a problem with the EU. And world governments in general — the more power they have and the further away from the elections that keep them accountable, the more tyrannical they become.

Again, it is the member states governments pushing for the thing you are calling "tyrannical". It is the EU parliament constantly blocking it.

If anything, the EU is curtailing the undemocratic tendencies of member states.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com