Voters were promised it’d be one of the faction’s front runners in the election.This would have been the better way of doing it, as voters would have gotten an influence on the commission president and would have known what to expect. Then the council said “lol no” after the fact and parliament went with it. Basically our representatives chose to not represent us.
I have a problem with politicians misleading the electorate (yes, I know that’s sadly common).
While I think UvdL is incompetent, corrupt and should be in prison, I am also a democrat and therefor accept that politicians I don’t agree with can and will be elected. What I can’t accept is telling the voter “if you vote for party A, we will put B in office and do C” and then after the election doing a 180, putting X in office and/or doing Y. Because at that point voting becomes roulette instead of an informed decision.
I would have less of a problem if they hadn’t promoted the whole front runner thing in the first place, because then they wouldn’t have falsely advertised their intentions. EU institutions beside the parliament have a legitimacy issue already, stunts like this only emphasize that.
I don’t have any strong opinions on UvdL myself. Some things she seems to have done well, some things very badly, like the phone text messages not being made public.
Like you I’m very much a democrat and I agree fully, except that I also think that the nature of politics is that compromises will have to be made. So if you don’t do what you say you will, then you will have to have something to show for it, and the voters will tell you if it was enough.
The post-truth and identity politics infuriate me to no end though.
I am represented by the entirety of the parliament. But true representation also requires being honest about your intentions so people can make informed decisions about who they want to represent them.
Voters were promised it’d be one of the faction’s front runners in the election.This would have been the better way of doing it, as voters would have gotten an influence on the commission president and would have known what to expect. Then the council said “lol no” after the fact and parliament went with it. Basically our representatives chose to not represent us.
It doesn’t sound like you have a problem with the way elections are done but more about who was elected?
What you suggested doesn’t change the way the president is chosen.
I don’t know why UvdL was chosen. Do you?
I have a problem with politicians misleading the electorate (yes, I know that’s sadly common).
While I think UvdL is incompetent, corrupt and should be in prison, I am also a democrat and therefor accept that politicians I don’t agree with can and will be elected. What I can’t accept is telling the voter “if you vote for party A, we will put B in office and do C” and then after the election doing a 180, putting X in office and/or doing Y. Because at that point voting becomes roulette instead of an informed decision.
I would have less of a problem if they hadn’t promoted the whole front runner thing in the first place, because then they wouldn’t have falsely advertised their intentions. EU institutions beside the parliament have a legitimacy issue already, stunts like this only emphasize that.
I don’t have any strong opinions on UvdL myself. Some things she seems to have done well, some things very badly, like the phone text messages not being made public.
Like you I’m very much a democrat and I agree fully, except that I also think that the nature of politics is that compromises will have to be made. So if you don’t do what you say you will, then you will have to have something to show for it, and the voters will tell you if it was enough.
The post-truth and identity politics infuriate me to no end though.
You are represented by the parties you vote for.
I am represented by the entirety of the parliament. But true representation also requires being honest about your intentions so people can make informed decisions about who they want to represent them.