The EU actively engages in selecting and canceling heads of governments in EU countries. There has been 0 cases where the head of the commision was held accountable for something. Actually the current head has been found guilty by the EU court for hiding text messages. Who is going to hold her accountable and how ?
I m all for the EU but defending its despicable leadership with arguments that reverse reality is not doing any favors to anyone
Please link an example of the European Commission cancelling a government or election.
Can you explain why you linked to these two links?a
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/former-censor...
A link to other website that also does not provide any evidence is not evidence even if it looks like a citation.
You mean the fellow who illegally received undeclared external foreign funding? More concretely, from Russia, a declared state sponsor of terrorism?
I don't particularly like the Electoral College - but the history and the cases when members voted against the people are interesting and in some (many?) cases, examples of checks and balances.
Checks and balances don't always align with your desires. That's a feature of democracy not a failure.
Presumably if my votes counted a million times more than yours, you wouldn't say it's still a democracy, right? The extreme here is obviously a single ruler whose vote counts more than everyone else's combined. Where do you draw the line here?
That’s your definition, but then I’d like to understand what you call these form of government and how you differentiate from a country like russia, which is also holding elections.
The way you phrase it is very binary: either a country has popular vote or it’s the same as the least democratic countries.
No. I merely pointed out that we have two extremes and that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and thus asked where the parent commenter draws the line. That's it. I never suggested anything about where I believe the line should be drawn.
Many states now have "faithless elector" laws that require the electors to vote according to the populace's expectations of how the elector will vote in the college.
I wasn't trying to claim the US is non-democratic, I was pointing out to the author of the prior comment that the US system isn't perfect either.
Sure, if by "democratic" you mean "people are allowed to file ballots".
Regardless, it's hard for me to see the senate and electoral college as very "democratic" in the sense of your vote mattering equally.
Sure, but that's not the issue with current US administration, and it's dishonest to say that.
The issue is that checks and balances are literally, indisputably, being ignored. Ignoring court orders and doing illegal things is bad, actually. When Jackson defied Congress we at least had the decency to try to impeach his ass.
The current US administration is not only grossly incompetent and unqualified, as seen by the signal scandals, but they're also openly hostile to the democratic institutions of this country.
The US has a democratic system where the President is ultimately voted for by an unelected electoral college who can refuse to vote for the candidate their state voted for and has ended up with the candidate with most votes loosing.
Then said president can change the countries top court on obviously political lines and re-interpret existing laws and the constitution.
> At this time there are 0 people worth talking about in the Commission or the council
The European Commission has no need to play popularity contests, it's accountable to the heads of governments, not randoms on social media.