6 ms·

By that argument, the German government isn’t elected either. The Bundestag is elected and elects a Chancellor who then picks a government.

SiempreViernes 5y ago
But that very same argument, the use of an electoral collage of course also means the US president is not elected, since people's vote only choose electors.
- blibble 5y ago
  how do you think the American people would feel if the college elected someone that: - hadn't won any primaries - hadn't attended any debates - said zero words about their plans for office - and hadn't even run for president because that's exactly what happened with Von der Leyen's appointment
  - orwin 5y ago
    If Von der Leyen had even a third of the power Macron or Sholtz have, that could be an issue. I'd the French/German finance minister have more power than Von der Leyen. And once upon a time, the French Finance minister was an unelected banker, who never won a single election and did not work in the political field.
    - blibble 5y ago
      the existence of other people in other countries doesn't mean the EU is fit to be called "democratic"
      - kmeisthax 5y ago
        The existence of unelected political appointees does not make the EU non-democratic. Furthermore, fixing the anti-democratic features of the EU requires giving it more power[0]. The reason why the EU has so many appointees is because it represents member states, not people. This is true for every international organization. The only way to have international organizations that are democratically accountable is to actually have a notion of international citizenship - in other words, to agree that, say, German votes are allowed to dilute Spanish ones. This is tantamount to political union. Because the EU did not want a political union[1], they instead decided to limit the amount of elected representatives in the system, and let member states fill in the rest. So you don't get to vote for Ursula von der Leyen, you get to vote for the person who appointed the person who gets to vote for Ursula von der Leyen. Yes, this is complicated and stupid, but it's also the thing that keeps the EU international rather than sovereign. If you don't like it you should push for reforming the EU into a properly democratic single country. Also, if you think the EU is entirely undemocratic, then let me ask you: when was the last time you voted for anything in the World Trade Organization, NATO, or the United Nations? The WTO in particular are the kings of antidemocratic policy laundering, so much so that it would make Ursula von der Leyen blush. [0] For the record, giving it less power reverts back to the international default, where governments are entirely sovereign within their own territory and powerless without. So, say, the French have 100% say over who their leaders are and what they do, but 0% say over international affairs, because they aren't citizens of those other countries. [1] This is almost certainly no longer the case now that Britain is out of the picture.
        blibble 5y ago
        > The existence of unelected political appointees does not make the EU non-democratic. not alone, no, but when combined with: - a parliament made up of directly elected representatives that can't legislate, modify or repeal previously passed acts - the ratcheting of transfer of powers in direct opposition to what the people of Europe want (ignoring No referendums on the Constitution of Europe and passing it through regardless): the "Monnet method" - deliberate "degenerative proportionality": a Maltese voter has 30x the representation of a German (makes no sense in the organ that's supposed to represent the people) - the concentration of executive power via the mass transfer of power from elected national parliaments to the council it's beyond a joke to say it's democratic > If you don't like it you should push for reforming the EU into a properly democratic single country. I don't have a problem with the idea of a federated Europe, as long as the people voted for it the problem the EU has is: the peoples of Europe wouldn't, so it's being done by slowly by deception instead and by design it's impossible to revert (unless you leave entirely, which is extremely difficult) > Also, if you think the EU is entirely undemocratic, then let me ask you: when was the last time you voted for anything in the World Trade Organization, NATO, or the United Nations? I don't remember these organisations pretending to be democratic (let alone having legions of fans online stating that they are)
        kmeisthax 5y ago
        >I don't remember these organisations pretending to be democratic (let alone having legions of fans online stating that they are) Does it matter? They're still a bigger stumbling block to democracy than the EU's various collections of appointed positions are. All of the anti-democratic features you mentioned are present in other international bodies, but amped up to 11. It is unfair to single out the EU as wholly responsible for this. Also, I feel the need to defend the EU on one other point: ratcheting. If you have a free trade area in which member nations are allowed to pick-and-choose each little bit of the EU treaties, then you lose the benefit of the EU, and just get a bunch of top-heavy bureaucracy with no other benefit. Furthermore, the things that the EU tends to be really adamant about - such as freedom-of-movement[0] - are essential for making the bloc work at all. The EU has such dogged fans because people don't want things like freedom-of-movement taken away from them, and nobody's made a serious proposal for fixing the EU's problems aside from "leave and go back to having borders everywhere" or "federal Europe". Alternatively, they're Americans who happen to oppose strict immigration control[1] and, thus, oppose euroskeptics purely by association. [0] This is also why the UK's original "free trade without freedom of movement" proposal was shot down so quickly. The biggest mistake the west made was convincing the whole world to let goods move faster than people do. This constitutes a transfer of power from labor to capital. [1] As you might have already guessed from the previous footnote I am an American who opposes strict immigration control. I'll at least entertain the thought of the EU needing reforms, though.
    - pyuser583 5y ago
      You’re arguing why the office doesn’t need to be democratically chosen. That’s fair. A well run society has more than democracy - it also has skilled civil servants, a commitment to rule of law, protection for individual rights, etc. But when people complain the EU isn’t democratic enough, they mean it’s too focused on skilled administrators.
      - toyg 5y ago
        That's because nation-state politicians are unwilling to give away powers, which is what happens when you focus away from skilled administrators.

SiempreViernes 5y ago

But that very same argument, the use of an electoral collage of course also means the US president is not elected, since people's vote only choose electors.

blibble 5y ago
how do you think the American people would feel if the college elected someone that: - hadn't won any primaries - hadn't attended any debates - said zero words about their plans for office - and hadn't even run for president because that's exactly what happened with Von der Leyen's appointment
- orwin 5y ago
  If Von der Leyen had even a third of the power Macron or Sholtz have, that could be an issue. I'd the French/German finance minister have more power than Von der Leyen. And once upon a time, the French Finance minister was an unelected banker, who never won a single election and did not work in the political field.
  - blibble 5y ago
    the existence of other people in other countries doesn't mean the EU is fit to be called "democratic"
    - kmeisthax 5y ago
      The existence of unelected political appointees does not make the EU non-democratic. Furthermore, fixing the anti-democratic features of the EU requires giving it more power[0]. The reason why the EU has so many appointees is because it represents member states, not people. This is true for every international organization. The only way to have international organizations that are democratically accountable is to actually have a notion of international citizenship - in other words, to agree that, say, German votes are allowed to dilute Spanish ones. This is tantamount to political union. Because the EU did not want a political union[1], they instead decided to limit the amount of elected representatives in the system, and let member states fill in the rest. So you don't get to vote for Ursula von der Leyen, you get to vote for the person who appointed the person who gets to vote for Ursula von der Leyen. Yes, this is complicated and stupid, but it's also the thing that keeps the EU international rather than sovereign. If you don't like it you should push for reforming the EU into a properly democratic single country. Also, if you think the EU is entirely undemocratic, then let me ask you: when was the last time you voted for anything in the World Trade Organization, NATO, or the United Nations? The WTO in particular are the kings of antidemocratic policy laundering, so much so that it would make Ursula von der Leyen blush. [0] For the record, giving it less power reverts back to the international default, where governments are entirely sovereign within their own territory and powerless without. So, say, the French have 100% say over who their leaders are and what they do, but 0% say over international affairs, because they aren't citizens of those other countries. [1] This is almost certainly no longer the case now that Britain is out of the picture.
      - blibble 5y ago
        > The existence of unelected political appointees does not make the EU non-democratic. not alone, no, but when combined with: - a parliament made up of directly elected representatives that can't legislate, modify or repeal previously passed acts - the ratcheting of transfer of powers in direct opposition to what the people of Europe want (ignoring No referendums on the Constitution of Europe and passing it through regardless): the "Monnet method" - deliberate "degenerative proportionality": a Maltese voter has 30x the representation of a German (makes no sense in the organ that's supposed to represent the people) - the concentration of executive power via the mass transfer of power from elected national parliaments to the council it's beyond a joke to say it's democratic > If you don't like it you should push for reforming the EU into a properly democratic single country. I don't have a problem with the idea of a federated Europe, as long as the people voted for it the problem the EU has is: the peoples of Europe wouldn't, so it's being done by slowly by deception instead and by design it's impossible to revert (unless you leave entirely, which is extremely difficult) > Also, if you think the EU is entirely undemocratic, then let me ask you: when was the last time you voted for anything in the World Trade Organization, NATO, or the United Nations? I don't remember these organisations pretending to be democratic (let alone having legions of fans online stating that they are)
        kmeisthax 5y ago
        >I don't remember these organisations pretending to be democratic (let alone having legions of fans online stating that they are) Does it matter? They're still a bigger stumbling block to democracy than the EU's various collections of appointed positions are. All of the anti-democratic features you mentioned are present in other international bodies, but amped up to 11. It is unfair to single out the EU as wholly responsible for this. Also, I feel the need to defend the EU on one other point: ratcheting. If you have a free trade area in which member nations are allowed to pick-and-choose each little bit of the EU treaties, then you lose the benefit of the EU, and just get a bunch of top-heavy bureaucracy with no other benefit. Furthermore, the things that the EU tends to be really adamant about - such as freedom-of-movement[0] - are essential for making the bloc work at all. The EU has such dogged fans because people don't want things like freedom-of-movement taken away from them, and nobody's made a serious proposal for fixing the EU's problems aside from "leave and go back to having borders everywhere" or "federal Europe". Alternatively, they're Americans who happen to oppose strict immigration control[1] and, thus, oppose euroskeptics purely by association. [0] This is also why the UK's original "free trade without freedom of movement" proposal was shot down so quickly. The biggest mistake the west made was convincing the whole world to let goods move faster than people do. This constitutes a transfer of power from labor to capital. [1] As you might have already guessed from the previous footnote I am an American who opposes strict immigration control. I'll at least entertain the thought of the EU needing reforms, though.
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    You’re arguing why the office doesn’t need to be democratically chosen. That’s fair. A well run society has more than democracy - it also has skilled civil servants, a commitment to rule of law, protection for individual rights, etc. But when people complain the EU isn’t democratic enough, they mean it’s too focused on skilled administrators.
    - toyg 5y ago
      That's because nation-state politicians are unwilling to give away powers, which is what happens when you focus away from skilled administrators.