Tony Blair out of EU president contest

[Lusankya]

I don't know why Skgoa thinks that he and his valuable skills will have a say even in a strongly hypothetical, democratic China.

For that matter - and keep in mind here that I'm probably the biggest Chinapologist on this board - I can assure you that any attempts towards democracy in China are only introduced as a means of maintaining CCP control of an increasingly educated and globalised country. China has lots of things going for it, but democratisation (assuming that such a thing is necessarily desirable in any given situation, which in my opinion is something that should be demonstrated, rather than assumed a priori to be the case) is not one of them.

[Skgoa]

And direct election is automatically good...why?

I think this is our main disagreement. In my experience whatever position or kind of power your are taking about, its basicly: people who brought you into power and who you need to stay in power will be listened to - the President is a political appointee by the heads of gouvernment and will try to appease THEM and not the ordinary citizens.

There's a reason Germany steered away from that.

Then feel free to actually state this ominous reason.

If you consider the people making the decision to be democratically elected,

Which I do not do, since the seats are not alloted by population.

and they can express their ideas for the country,

Which is highly questionable, since this is high politics. I DO NOT think that even one of these 27 people has anything other than his own interests in mind.

then I see no reason that this way to come up with the European "President" is any less democratically valid.

As I have tried to show, I don't have faith in the "chain of trust".


@Thanas: Yes, I do. Although you misrepresented the american electoral system by omiting that the president DOES have to campaign and that the people DO decide by an election. And that is EXACTLY what is missing from the process by which the european president is chosen right now.
And while we are at it: please point out how the american electoral system is relevant to this.

[The Guid]

I think this is our main disagreement. In my experience whatever position or kind of power your are taking about, its basicly: people who brought you into power and who you need to stay in power will be listened to - the President is a political appointee by the heads of gouvernment and will try to appease THEM and not the ordinary citizens.

So all of a sudden if the President of the EU was directly elected he'd be appeasing the "ordinary citizens"? What an absolute load of rubbish - if there was to be direct elections then there would be need for arguably the hugest election campaign the world has ever seen. Is this going to be run on magic money that springs from nobody? No. Its going to be hugely dependent on donors - more so than the usual elections in any country so lets not pretend that Democracy works any better than it does.

Also, there is every chance of a tyranny of the majority - why bother dealing with the voters of Wales, Ireland, Luxembourg or Lithuania when their voice is dwarfed by that of Germany's voters - you need the German bloc far more than any of the others. Guess whose interests you'll forward? All of Europe's?

[TC Pilot]

I think this is our main disagreement. In my experience whatever position or kind of power your are taking about, its basicly: people who brought you into power and who you need to stay in power will be listened to - the President is a political appointee by the heads of gouvernment and will try to appease THEM and not the ordinary citizens.

I take it, then, that you regard your government as mere tools with which politicians aggrandize themselves?

Then feel free to actually state this ominous reason.

Take a wild guess.

Which is highly questionable, since this is high politics. I DO NOT think that even one of these 27 people has anything other than his own interests in mind.

Do you have even the faintest shred of a reason to justify such a ludicrous claim?

Although you misrepresented the american electoral system by omiting that the president DOES have to campaign and that the people DO decide by an election.

No, they don't. People vote for electors, who are appointed by the states, who are actually under absolutely no obligation to vote for anyone other than who they deign fit to vote for. They do, of course, in practice respond to the will of the people, which makes a nice mokery of your laughable mistrust of indirect democratic principles.

[Skgoa]

So all of a sudden if the President of the EU was directly elected he'd be appeasing the "ordinary citizens"? What an absolute load of rubbish - if there was to be direct elections then there would be need for arguably the hugest election campaign the world has ever seen. Is this going to be run on magic money that springs from nobody? No. Its going to be hugely dependent on donors - more so than the usual elections in any country so lets not pretend that Democracy works any better than it does.

It seems to work in the US. What would you say if suddenly the Governors got to decide on a President? But you are right, campaign finance reform is an important issue that has to be solved.

Also, there is every chance of a tyranny of the majority - why bother dealing with the voters of Wales, Ireland, Luxembourg or Lithuania when their voice is dwarfed by that of Germany's voters - you need the German bloc far more than any of the others. Guess whose interests you'll forward? All of Europe's?

Is that different right now? AFAIK there is a rule that links majority in the council to population and the bigger member states have more seats in the parliament.

I think this is our main disagreement. In my experience whatever position or kind of power your are taking about, its basicly: people who brought you into power and who you need to stay in power will be listened to - the President is a political appointee by the heads of government and will try to appease THEM and not the ordinary citizens.

I take it, then, that you regard your government as mere tools with which politicians aggrandize themselves?

No, I don't. But my personal experience with politicians and the "behind the scenes" of professional politics have disillusioned me somewhat.

Then feel free to actually state this ominous reason.

Take a wild guess.

I don't have to, since I have this absolutely awesome argument which is really to obvious to even include it here.

Which is highly questionable, since this is high politics. I DO NOT think that even one of these 27 people has anything other than his own interests in mind.

Do you have even the faintest shred of a reason to justify such a ludicrous claim?

Other than them being experienced career politicians, which is a highly corrupt and cutthroat occupation? How many politicians have ever done something that doesn't benefit them somehow?

Although you misrepresented the american electoral system by omiting that the president DOES have to campaign and that the people DO decide by an election.

No, they don't. People vote for electors, who are appointed by the states, who are actually under absolutely no obligation to vote for anyone other than who they deign fit to vote for. They do, of course, in practice respond to the will of the people, which makes a nice mokery of your laughable mistrust of indirect democratic principles.

Are you claiming that Obama did not actually run an election campaign and that US citizens did not have the expectation that the election was about who would be the next president?

[Dahak]

And direct election is automatically good...why?

I think this is our main disagreement. In my experience whatever position or kind of power your are taking about, its basicly: people who brought you into power and who you need to stay in power will be listened to - the President is a political appointee by the heads of gouvernment and will try to appease THEM and not the ordinary citizens.

And it opens all kinds of doors for populists. If you get directly elected by people, getting there is far easier if you just tell them what they want to hear. Chavez is a nice example.

There's a reason Germany steered away from that.

Then feel free to actually state this ominous reason.

The last time Germany elected her presidents directly didn't turn out to well, did it? Or you fell asleep during history classes?

If you consider the people making the decision to be democratically elected,

Which I do not do, since the seats are not alloted by population.

Which has nothing to do with being democratically elected in itself.

and they can express their ideas for the country,

Which is highly questionable, since this is high politics. I DO NOT think that even one of these 27 people has anything other than his own interests in mind.

And some bloke elected by the people suddenly has all their purest and best interests at heart? Woa...you're naive.

then I see no reason that this way to come up with the European "President" is any less democratically valid.

As I have tried to show, I don't have faith in the "chain of trust".

That "chain" being purely your idea of some naive fairy-tale world where directly elected people suddenly act altruistic for the good of the people? Populists would then be your favourite kind, huh? In my experience, some times politicians have to decide on things that are not popular but the right thing to do. That's hard to do if you need direct votes...

[Atlan]

Then feel free to actually state this ominous reason.

Take a wild guess.

I don't have to, since I have this absolutely awesome argument which is really to obvious to even include it here.

He's talking about Hitler and the Nazi party, you dolt. Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a baby, that you didn't get that reference?

[TC Pilot]

No, I don't. But my personal experience with politicians and the "behind the scenes" of professional politics have disillusioned me somewhat.

Ah, so you're just a whining hypocrite.

Other than them being experienced career politicians, which is a highly corrupt and cutthroat occupation? How many politicians have ever done something that doesn't benefit them somehow?

So in other words, no, you don't have any real reason.

Are you claiming that Obama did not actually run an election campaign and that US citizens did not have the expectation that the election was about who would be the next president?

That's the point, idiot. A system of indirect election of the country's chief executive has taken on a veneer of direct democracy precisely because those selected by the people to elect, appoint, empower, etc. adhere to the wishes of the people, even while having no formal obligation to do so.

[Skgoa]

And direct election is automatically good...why?

I think this is our main disagreement. In my experience whatever position or kind of power your are taking about, its basicly: people who brought you into power and who you need to stay in power will be listened to - the President is a political appointee by the heads of gouvernment and will try to appease THEM and not the ordinary citizens.

And it opens all kinds of doors for populists. If you get directly elected by people, getting there is far easier if you just tell them what they want to hear. Chavez is a nice example.

Sorry for the ad hominem, but do you read die Zeit?

There's a reason Germany steered away from that.

Then feel free to actually state this ominous reason.

The last time Germany elected her presidents directly didn't turn out to well, did it? Or you fell asleep during history classes?

The first two of the three elected Presidents were not bad and the last one had to preside over a noneffective government. Appointing Hitler was a mistake, but did he have any choice at that point? I don't think you can blame Hitler solely on the Weimar Republic's constitution. And thats argumentum ad hitlerum, so I win. \o/

If you consider the people making the decision to be democratically elected,

Which I do not do, since the seats are not alloted by population.

Which has nothing to do with being democratically elected in itself.

You might want to look up what constitutes a democratic election. Hint: you are looking for something like "every vote has the same value".

and they can express their ideas for the country,

Which is highly questionable, since this is high politics. I DO NOT think that even one of these 27 people has anything other than his own interests in mind.

And some bloke elected by the people suddenly has all their purest and best interests at heart? Woa...you're naive.

Strawman, ad hominem and you didn't even address my argument.

That "chain" being purely your idea of some naive fairy-tale world where directly elected people suddenly act altruistic for the good of the people? Populists would then be your favourite kind, huh? In my experience, some times politicians have to decide on things that are not popular but the right thing to do. That's hard to do if you need direct votes...

Strawman and ad hominem.

I don't have to, since I have this absolutely awesome argument which is really to obvious to even include it here.

He's talking about Hitler and the Nazi party, you dolt. Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a baby, that you didn't get that reference?

Of course I got it. But a) its stupid since Hitler wasn't even elected President by ANYONE, least of all the people, wich makes this totaly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, b) "our constitution is a product of the lessons from the Weimar Republic and can not ever be changed and any other way of doing something is allways inferior" is THE standard argument from german intellectuals in discussions like this (and quite frankly its stupid in itself) and c) I am under no obligation to make his argument for him. You get to state your arguments, but you don't get to allude to arguments you supposedly have and use those allusions to make your point.

Ah, so you're just a whining hypocrite.

Yeah, you can go fuck yourself, too. Come back when you can make arguments supporting your point.

[Thanas]

Skgoa, how about you present some actual arguments in favor of your position?

[TC Pilot]

Yeah, you can go fuck yourself, too. Come back when you can make arguments supporting your point.

Yeaaaaah, an idiot like you isn't going to last long around here if the best you can do is completely ignore the argument. Not that I'm too surprised, since your own argument's a pathetic joke.

Just keep digging yourself deeper into that hole, kiddie.

[Dahak]

And it opens all kinds of doors for populists. If you get directly elected by people, getting there is far easier if you just tell them what they want to hear. Chavez is a nice example.

Sorry for the ad hominem, but do you read die Zeit?

I don't. And your point is...?

The first two of the three elected Presidents were not bad and the last one had to preside over a noneffective government. Appointing Hitler was a mistake, but did he have any choice at that point? I don't think you can blame Hitler solely on the Weimar Republic's constitution. And thats argumentum ad hitlerum, so I win. \o/

It just should show you that simply having a populace vote directly doesn't turn out inherently better results. Something that it seems you cling to in your argument, at least from where I am standing.

Which I do not do, since the seats are not alloted by population.

Which has nothing to do with being democratically elected in itself.

You might want to look up what constitutes a democratic election. Hint: you are looking for something like "every vote has the same value".

And if you give each country an amount of seats according to its populace, then it makes the constituting elements less democratically elected...how? If all of the members on the table are democratically elected, and they all decide on a course of action fairly, I fail to see how this turns out to be suddenly undemocratic or something Very Bad (TM)

Which is highly questionable, since this is high politics. I DO NOT think that even one of these 27 people has anything other than his own interests in mind.

And some bloke elected by the people suddenly has all their purest and best interests at heart? Woa...you're naive.

Strawman, ad hominem and you didn't even address my argument.

What is your argument? You just attack those people in high politics, generalising them just for being politicians, and what?
From your snippets it seems to me like you think that someone directly elected would stand, somehow, above that and doesn't have "his own interest in mind"?

That "chain" being purely your idea of some naive fairy-tale world where directly elected people suddenly act altruistic for the good of the people? Populists would then be your favourite kind, huh? In my experience, some times politicians have to decide on things that are not popular but the right thing to do. That's hard to do if you need direct votes...

Strawman and ad hominem.

I'm still interested why and what would make that "chain" somehow better or more valid as you think it would?