upvote
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.

reply
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.

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

reply
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.

reply
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.

reply
> 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

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

reply
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.

reply
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.

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