Under the Lisbon Treaty, the job is to be a full-time one.
why shouldn't one identify alternative candidates
The Council President won't be democratially elected, it will be elected in the Council -- meaning, there will be lots of cattle-trading and backroom deals and spin campaigns; and lots of names will be brought into discussion (have been brought up) before any official candidacy, some to push the candidate, some to burn the candidate. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The Council President won't be democratially elected, it will be elected in the Council
This I understood. And if the honor is emeritus, an election created for Council pensioners by Council members, cultivating popular disapproval of Blair's candidacy is void. Unless some language in the treaty permits Council constituents to disqualify a candidate. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Well he is employed, but bored of the job... as Middle East envoy. He is bored, but I would more say that that disqualifies him.... *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Uh, the members of the Council will elect the President: sounds democratic to me.
Repeat after me: the members of the EU are the states.
What are the conditions for democracy? Is one-man-one-vote one of them? Is representative democracy democratic? En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
The analogy to the stockholder's meeting would be accurate if voting weights were determined by GDP. Or by GDP pro capita.
(That aside, the parallels between the modern Western, spin-mediated version of democracy and the stockholder's meeting are eerily accurate at times.)
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
First, is the IMF not democratic since votes are proportional to budgetary contributions?
What of Penrose's square-root rule and the power index? Why is "slower than linear with population" a bad thing? En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Yes, the IMF is not democratic. (The fact that votes are weighted according to budget contributions is probably the least of the democratic problems, but that's the IMF for you...)
What of Penrose's square-root rule and the power index? Why is "slower than linear with population" a bad thing?
I didn't mean to say that they were a bad thing. There are as many sound cases for having slower than linearly increasing voting weights as there are sound cases against it.
The Council President won't be democratially elected, it will be elected in the Council Uh, the members of the Council will elect the President: sounds democratic to me.
Does not sound democratic to me.
Suppose you elect an assembly that elects an assembly that elects an assembly that meets behind closed doors to elect a person. Sure you got to vote, but put in that many steps between your vote an the last decision and you will have no influence over that last decision. (I think that is what they use in Cuba.)
Colman:
And I think the hallmark of democracy it that the citizens - the demos if you like - is the deciding power. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
MAJORITY RULE His party was the Brotherhood of Brothers, and there were more of them than of the others. That is, they constituted that minority which formed the greater part of the majority. Within the party, he was of the faction that was supported by the greater fraction. And in each group, within each group, he sought the group that could command the most support. The final group had finally elected a triumvirate whom they all respected. Now, of these three, two had final word, because the two could overrule the third. One of these two was relatively weak, so one alone stood at the final peak. He was: THE GREATER NUMBER of the pair which formed the most part of the three that were elected by the most of those whose boast it was to represent the most of the most of most of most of the entire state -- or of the most of it at any rate. He never gave himself a moment's slumber but sought the welfare of the greater number. And all people, everywhere they went, knew to their cost exactly what it meant to be dictated to by the majority. But that meant nothing, -- they were the minority.
His party was the Brotherhood of Brothers, and there were more of them than of the others. That is, they constituted that minority which formed the greater part of the majority. Within the party, he was of the faction that was supported by the greater fraction. And in each group, within each group, he sought the group that could command the most support. The final group had finally elected a triumvirate whom they all respected. Now, of these three, two had final word, because the two could overrule the third. One of these two was relatively weak, so one alone stood at the final peak. He was: THE GREATER NUMBER of the pair which formed the most part of the three that were elected by the most of those whose boast it was to represent the most of the most of most of most of the entire state -- or of the most of it at any rate. He never gave himself a moment's slumber but sought the welfare of the greater number. And all people, everywhere they went, knew to their cost exactly what it meant to be dictated to by the majority. But that meant nothing, -- they were the minority.
