LOL okay, cant debate someone who ignores facts.
So when did eurocrats lose? A guy like Rumpuy would not win a normal election, he has ruled Europe now for 4 years and likely to get another 2 years.
There is a huge difference but you seem incapable in wanting to see the very clear differences in the two. Let me try to spell it out..
China = no elections, one party rule, who dictates Hong Kongs government and policies. At best the Hong Kong legislature can block some legislation but the actual fact is that to run for that legislature you need to have permission from Bejing.
EU = made up of member nations that all have free elections with multiple parties plus an EU Parliament made up of people elected directly.
That is not correct. Legislature in Hong Kong are decided by Hong Kong, exept the parties who win in Hong Kong are pro-China.. While China could take more power, they currently aren't. But lets talk about another country because of your bias against China.
What about Singapore? You certainly don't like democracy in Singapore either. But they have free elections, are not controlled by China. Sure they punish districts who vote wrong, but so do EU. In fact I would say democracy in Singapore is better than the EU.
What? Are you saying that David Cameron is not elected by the people? That Merkel is not elected by the people? Wow that is news to me!
No, they aren't. People vote for parties who nominate David Cameron or Angela Merkel. Hence they may not represent the people that well, but it doesn't matter due to coalitions. While David Cameron may want to do something, he will be unable to do so due to his parliament and coalition. Also, sometimes coalitions is out of sync with their own people, but are forced to change, because voters are getting information about what they are doing and they don't like it.
In the EU Merkel and Cameron do not need to care what their coalition thinks and certainly not what their people think. In most cases when Angela Merkel discusses in the EU she only need to care about her own opinion.
Also, as pointed out. People vote for parties for domestic politics. Not international politics. You came then with the stupid answer. "In no country you do that. ". In the US you vote for state parties for state politics and federal parties for federal politics. That is why many people in New York vote Republican in state elections and Democrat in federal elections. Democracy in the US would be more flawed if governors decided who are going to be President.
Come on.. I can get information about the EU easier than I can of my own political parties. I have to go around hunting for information about the 5+ different parties in Denmark, where as I have the option of 2 places for information about the EU. The official EU office in Copenhagen... right on the main shopping street, or
EUROPA ? EU website | Choose your language | Choisir une langue | Wählen Sie eine Sprache. How hard can it be? Your "democratic deficit" argument is beyond laughable, especially when you are a prime example of the "typical" EU citizen.. too lazy to read up on facts about the EU.. to lazy to seek out the information and then has the nerve to complain that we dont get enough information.. hello what about personal responsibility?
This just shows contempt for democracy. So the only place to check information about the EU is it's own website. Sure, not biased at all. As pointed out it is not everyone except you being stupid. It is people having a life, that does not revolve around worshiping the EU. It is the system that is made in a way it is hard to get information. Maybe your EU project would go a little bit better if you didn't have such contempt for it's own people.
In Domestic politics you can check
- Media
- Party sites
- Government sites telling what they are doing
- Independent blogs/sites
At EU level the only information you get is what laws are passed and the Offical EU site who used 10 minutes to open and contain no useful information regarding what party to vote for. The problem is that EU does not allow people to directly elect the President, and it does not allow people to vote for parties from other countries. If there was 10 big EU parties, then it would be much easier to know what they stand for and what they are doing.
However, EU does not just need a better Parliament elections. EU also needs to have direct election of the President. Then the elected President could create a commission and they would have to deal with the Parliament and Council. If that happened, then EU democracy would improve. But right now, like many others I say, "no integration without representation".
First off there is one hell of a difference between the two. The US is a country, the EU is not.
A lot of politicans in the EU want EU to become a country. If EU want more integration then I expect higher standard for democracy.
Secondly the US turnout numbers depend on what part of the US election cycle we are talking about. When there is a President involved, then yes, the turn out is between 45% to 55% (2008 was a special year with 57%.. mostly it is around or below 50%.. still far under most European national elections. However when there is no President involved, those numbers fall to between 33% to 37% and it is the latter which is mostly comparable to the EU elections. On top of that, turnout in EU elections varry across the EU depending on country. Belgium for example had 91% turn-out where as Slovakia only had 20% last election. Ironically the lowest turn out nations are the former soviet satellite states who dont understand elections and the UK... irony at its best.
Worst excuse ever. EU only has one election every 5 year. If EU had another election in between that was not as important then less than 30% would have voted.
Again, voting in Hong Kong means nothing and the people know that. The high vote in the last election was put down to a protest vote against the Bejing rulers, else the elections usually barely break 40% in turnout.
Still EU only got 40%. So during the worst years in Hong Kong, they have the same participation as the EU. You are calling Hong Kong a dictatorship and EU a democracy. Then why do more people vote in Hong Kong than in the EU. Maybe it is due to the democratic deficit in the EU. People feel their vote means nothing, because it is impossible to see their impact of their vote, because EU lacks transparency.
Also, another reason participation increased in Hong Kong is because democracy in Hong Kong improved. It is now possible to vote out the pro-Chinese parties.
...... you should go and read up on US election laws... you will find that the US President is not elected directly. Bush Jr comes to mind of a President who lost the popular vote but took the White House.
I just talked about it previously when I said US democracy is flawed too, but not as flawed as the EU. Why do you post dumb comments like that, do you think I will not notice?
While they can not directly elect their President by popular vote, they can at least elect him directly by state vote. That is better than EU who has no election at all.