5 ms·

> The decisions in the European Parliament were made by people freely elected in 2019 elections. Freely electing representatives does not mean those representa

> The decisions in the European Parliament were made by people freely elected in 2019 elections. Freely electing representatives does not mean those representatives will faithfully execute the will of their voters. The people of the US freely elect their representatives, and yet: Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. - https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 That is not to say the same is true in the EU, but it shows that free elections alone are no guarantee that voter preferences influence policy.

mrtksn 5y ago
> Freely electing representatives does not mean those representatives will faithfully execute the will of their voters. That's exactly what it means - the caveat is, not being hostile to businesses and work with the businesses is part of the reason why people will choose them. If they fail to deliver enough, they don't get elected again. That's actually the core premise of a representative democracy. Elite cabal from a completely different species controlling the system in which we are slaves producing stuff that are sent to a galaxy far way is a fantasy. The "elites" are just people who manage the machinery that produces the stuff that the folks want. You can argue over their disproportionate compensation but when a political makes a decision in favour of an interest group, let's say steel production, they also make the decision in favour of the people who earn their living from that business. It can be argued over the long term impacts but that's part of the process. For example, we are in process convincing people that they need to give up some of their comforts to prevent very bad things happening 50 years from now. Once they get convinced, vote in people who will work for it and they do the thing. Most times it is a compromise because people have conflicting interests and the people voted in need to come to a solution that works good enough for everyone.
- brigandish 5y ago
  MSPs have no power to propose legislation, the Commission does that and it is not elected by the people, so it's a stretch to claim that a parliament that can only rubber stamp things is a representative democracy. Would the Soviet system be a representative democracy? It's a very similar set up.
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    The commission members are appointed by the elected governments of the member states(one each) and need to be approved by the European Parliament. Let's not portray it as if they are clerks of an external organisation. Anyway, if the MP's were simply rubber stamping whatever the commissioners propose, what they were discussing for 16 hours? Obviously, the portrayal of unelected bureaucrats shovelling whatever they want down the throat of the people is false.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      > The commission members are appointed by the elected governments of the member states(one each) and need to be approved by the European Parliament. > Let's not portray it as if they are clerks of an external organisation. I'm not sure whether that refers to the commissioners or the MSPs. Regardless, the commissioners are not elected by the people and the MSPs cannot propose legislation. That set up is essentially the same as the Soviets used and no one called that democracy (even though it technically was) so why should the EU get a pass? > Anyway, if the MP's were simply rubber stamping whatever the commissioners propose, what they were discussing for 16 hours? I've seen plenty of jobsworths in my time, they don't seem to have anything against appearing to be doing something, or actually doing something that serves no good use. That's not a problem for only the EU parliament, of course, but the point is whether it's a representative democracy and it clearly is not. I'm not even sure whether it could be.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  'That's exactly what it means' That is exactly what is doesn't mean, the poster you are replying to has provided proof in the form of peer revied research. You don't get to dismiss that based on how something should hypothetically work in an ideal world. 'That's actually the core premise of a representative democracy.' Communism also has a core premice, that does not mean it's valid and holds in a given country today "Elite cabal from a completely different species controlling the system in which we are slaves" The same argument judtifies Feudalism "when a political makes a decision in favour of an interest group, let's say steel production" This is literally the dictionary definition of 'undemocratic' And it also would justify Feudalism
dathinab 5y ago
> The people of the US freely elect their representatives, and yet: Not really, due to the nature of the US political system which is strongly based around dynamics which make sure that the parties in power stay in power. Calling elections for a (in practice) two party system free is a bit of an stretch. I mean sure it's better then a (in practice) one party system, but still there is (in practice) no real choice to vote for, nor can "you" create a new choice (in practice, theoretical you could but due to the dynamics of the system it doesn't work in practice EDIT: As long as not one of both of the parties fully collapse and even then it might not work).
- car_analogy 5y ago
  You are correct, I forgot to consider they dysfunctional first-past-the-post voting system. Even so, while that gives the EU better chances at real democracy, there are still many ways to interfere with popular will, so one cannot dismiss all criticism with "well they got the votes".

mrtksn 5y ago

> Freely electing representatives does not mean those representatives will faithfully execute the will of their voters. That's exactly what it means - the caveat is, not being hostile to businesses and work with the businesses is part of the reason why people will choose them. If they fail to deliver enough, they don't get elected again. That's actually the core premise of a representative democracy. Elite cabal from a completely different species controlling the system in which we are slaves producing stuff that are sent to a galaxy far way is a fantasy. The "elites" are just people who manage the machinery that produces the stuff that the folks want. You can argue over their disproportionate compensation but when a political makes a decision in favour of an interest group, let's say steel production, they also make the decision in favour of the people who earn their living from that business. It can be argued over the long term impacts but that's part of the process. For example, we are in process convincing people that they need to give up some of their comforts to prevent very bad things happening 50 years from now. Once they get convinced, vote in people who will work for it and they do the thing. Most times it is a compromise because people have conflicting interests and the people voted in need to come to a solution that works good enough for everyone.

brigandish 5y ago
MSPs have no power to propose legislation, the Commission does that and it is not elected by the people, so it's a stretch to claim that a parliament that can only rubber stamp things is a representative democracy. Would the Soviet system be a representative democracy? It's a very similar set up.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  The commission members are appointed by the elected governments of the member states(one each) and need to be approved by the European Parliament. Let's not portray it as if they are clerks of an external organisation. Anyway, if the MP's were simply rubber stamping whatever the commissioners propose, what they were discussing for 16 hours? Obviously, the portrayal of unelected bureaucrats shovelling whatever they want down the throat of the people is false.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > The commission members are appointed by the elected governments of the member states(one each) and need to be approved by the European Parliament. > Let's not portray it as if they are clerks of an external organisation. I'm not sure whether that refers to the commissioners or the MSPs. Regardless, the commissioners are not elected by the people and the MSPs cannot propose legislation. That set up is essentially the same as the Soviets used and no one called that democracy (even though it technically was) so why should the EU get a pass? > Anyway, if the MP's were simply rubber stamping whatever the commissioners propose, what they were discussing for 16 hours? I've seen plenty of jobsworths in my time, they don't seem to have anything against appearing to be doing something, or actually doing something that serves no good use. That's not a problem for only the EU parliament, of course, but the point is whether it's a representative democracy and it clearly is not. I'm not even sure whether it could be.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
'That's exactly what it means' That is exactly what is doesn't mean, the poster you are replying to has provided proof in the form of peer revied research. You don't get to dismiss that based on how something should hypothetically work in an ideal world. 'That's actually the core premise of a representative democracy.' Communism also has a core premice, that does not mean it's valid and holds in a given country today "Elite cabal from a completely different species controlling the system in which we are slaves" The same argument judtifies Feudalism "when a political makes a decision in favour of an interest group, let's say steel production" This is literally the dictionary definition of 'undemocratic' And it also would justify Feudalism

dathinab 5y ago

> The people of the US freely elect their representatives, and yet: Not really, due to the nature of the US political system which is strongly based around dynamics which make sure that the parties in power stay in power. Calling elections for a (in practice) two party system free is a bit of an stretch. I mean sure it's better then a (in practice) one party system, but still there is (in practice) no real choice to vote for, nor can "you" create a new choice (in practice, theoretical you could but due to the dynamics of the system it doesn't work in practice EDIT: As long as not one of both of the parties fully collapse and even then it might not work).

car_analogy 5y ago
You are correct, I forgot to consider they dysfunctional first-past-the-post voting system. Even so, while that gives the EU better chances at real democracy, there are still many ways to interfere with popular will, so one cannot dismiss all criticism with "well they got the votes".