Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | data_maan's comments login

They didn't demonstrate anything. They haven't even released their dataset, nor mentioned how big it is.

It's just hot air, just like the AlphaProof announcement, where very little is know about their system.


They won't publish the problem set for obvious reasons. And I doubt it's hot air, given the mathematicians involved in creating it.

How is that true, if the body that nominates the European Commission _is_ elected??

By the same argument you could say UK or US or any other solidly democratic is not democratic, because some commission or organisation is not directly, by the people, elected.

(If you go for the direct election argument, the UK fares pretty badly BTW.)


> By the same argument you could say UK or US or any other solidly democratic is not democratic, because some commission or organisation is not directly, by the people, elected.

It's a matter of degree rather than a binary. Representative democracy is a little less democratic than direct democracy. Elections every 20 years are a bit less democratic than elections every 5 years. Having the elected representatives appoint a head of state is a bit less democratic than electing one directly. The more layers of indirection you add, the more it becomes a bureaucratic oligarchy.


I agree. But my point is: Neither are UK or the US really clean democracies. In the US there is an entire system of courts that operate in a completely opaque way (eg FISA court). See my other post below for further examples.

It seems here that because the EU likes to regulate more, people somehow perceive it as less democratic.


The body that nominates the Commission isn't elected.

In theory the Commission is mostly made up of civil servants who answer to commissioners, who are themselves nominated by each country's own government or civil service. Each commissioner has one area of responsibility only, and they answer to the head of the Commission who is their boss. So someone in the UK votes for a politician, who votes for a party leader, who appoints some ministers, and those ministers may or may not have much of a say in whoever gets nominated to be a commissioner - one of many. But there is at least a path there, even if long and indirect and the person your vote ends up influencing doesn't do anything important to your country or needs.

In practice it doesn't actually work that way. In practice, the head of the Commission has veto power over the nominations. They aren't supposed to according to the treaties but the treaties are ignored. This means that in reality it's the head of the Commission who picks the Commissioners, because they can just reject anyone who isn't sufficiently aligned with their own agenda.

So that leaves the question of how the head of the Commission is picked. Once again there is theory and practice. In theory, it's a decision of the heads of each state that they take together to select some candidates, and the Parliament then gets to vote for their preferred candidate. In practice ... nobody knows how the head is picked. Ursula von der Leyen was recently re-appointed despite being plagued by scandals and having a long career of failing upwards. Parliament was sidelined by giving them a voting list with only one candidate on it (her). Seek out an explanation of how she got this job and you won't find one because:

1. The heads of state don't talk about how they decide as a group. Is it a vote? Some sort of horse trading? Do they take it in turns? Are they even all able to take part? Nobody knows.

2. There's no record of which country voted for who, or why.

3. The process by which someone even becomes a candidate is unclear.

4. Because no head of state has any control over who gets onto the candidate list, they never talk on the campaign trail about how they will "vote" (assuming that's how it works) for who runs the EU.

In other words, the process is entirely secret. The potential for corruption is unlimited.

So when critics say the EU Commission is a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, they are right and those who argue otherwise here on HN are wrong. People who got their jobs via a process so opaque and indirect that how it functions can't be explained, not even in principle, cannot claim to be democratically selected.


I don't buy your arguments.

> Parliament was sidelined by giving them a voting list with only one candidate on it (her).

This implies that the parliament has to pick on who is on the ballot, which it doesn't: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240710IP...

She was elected with a majority - albeit not a huge one. Still: elected. This is an example of "there is at least a path there, even if long and indirect".

How about another counterexample: In the US the members of the Federal Reserve are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate (so an indirect path, but fairly short), for 14 years! The Supreme Justices are appointed for life. To take this to a hypothetical extreme, image now calling a country "democratic" where you just hold elections once per lifetime.

That doesn't really strike me as democratic, as the "demos", the people, change their minds more often than once in 14 years, or once per lifetime.

Of course, the EU I'm sure also has appointments that go beyond the standard 4-5-ish years. But my point is: the EU isn't as undemocratic as you make it to be and the US/UK isn't as democratic as you may think. Both are muddling along, and probably neither reach Swiss levels.

> The process by which someone even becomes a candidate is unclear

Your points 1.-4. apply to many appointments in the US and UK that are similarly undemocratic: To take an example from the UK: The Governor of the Bank of England is appointed by the Chancellor+PM. Again, no one knows who or why they made the decision the way they made it. Were they friends with the future Governor? Did their party engage in some horse trading with the opposition to secure other benefits in turn for nominating a particular person? No one knows.


The governor of the Bank of England is indeed not democratically elected, and people do criticize that fact. I'm one of them!

But people certainly do know how that position is selected, by whom and for what reason. The current governor of the BoE has a long history of running government financial institutions, including in the central bank itself. He is a civil servant and is thus picked by the Chancellor, who is himself picked by the Prime Minister. No mysteries there. He is eminently qualified for the role.

On 3 June 2019, it was reported in The Times that Bailey was the favourite to replace Mark Carney as the new governor of the Bank of England.[9] Sajid Javid had also intervened in support of Bailey.[10][11] According to The Economist: "He is widely seen within the bank as a safe pair of hands, an experienced technocrat who knows how to manage an organisation."[12]

Previously he served as the Chief Cashier of the Bank of England under Mervyn King from January 2004 until April 2011, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England for Prudential Regulation under Mark Carney from April 2013 to July 2016 and Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority from 2016 to 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bailey_(banker)


You're absolutely right.

You can also even just observe the following litmus test of democratic legitimacy: what percentage of people have even heard of Ursula von der Leyen (or most of her predecessors) before her appointment to the most powerful position in the EU? Contrast that with their country's president or prime minister and you will see why one is democratically legitimate and the other is not.


The current prime minister of the uk was not elected for the position, they were given it by virtue of leading the party that won the most seats, the leadership of which was not voted for by the general public.

Yes, but people know who the head of the party was, and they knew who their local MP would be.

People dislike changes of party leadership by the party in power between elections because they get someone they did not vote for.

It is also only one layer removed from the people directly voted in. The EU Commissioners are another layer or too removed from who people voted for.


EU commissioners have no voice of their own, they are simply a vassal of the elected government of their country.

Definitely horse trading.

If politicians can engage in horse trading they will.


That is their job to horse-trade

This!

Newsflash: the Pentagon has literally _millions_ of bureaucrats.

None elected.

Unelected people are tasked with defending the free world. how about that?


I do wonder whether some people have thought out the end-game, in the event that they plan to simply fire all those people, turn them out onto the street, and replace them with nothing.

I mean, one outcome is the obvious collapse of the Pentagon. But it seems like an oversight to have those people, now with a bone to pick, running around loose. Do they propose to take all the bad Pentagon bureaucrats and confine them in some way? I wouldn't want to be the Sgt. Shultz in charge of being those guys' jailer. Seems like it would be a tall, tall order.


Millions of bureaucrats plotting to start new wars neither American public nor the rest of the world will not benefit from.

defending the un-free world, I think you mean. Unless you are exempt from forcible extraction of your wealth (taxes).

Sounds like America suffers from a collective psychosis.


Yup. The folks I know who embraced MAGA were all going through difficult emotional issues. It seemed to give them something they could rally around (i.e., bond with others to blame democrats, migrants, trans people, et al, for their problems)


> The truth is that we all know that she would say anything to win

While Trump wouldn't do any of that, right? He would say things because they're true :D

> It was a rather sleepy standard Republican presidency, whose few deviations from the norm pleased people

Just a small insurrection at the end, no biggie. Oh, and some international agreements were shattered, but who cares about those anyway. I mean, there was also Corona which jolted some people from sleep, but thanks to Trump's recommendation to get some chlorine you could get right back to sleeping :)


Ensured an R-partisan Supreme Court for the rest of my life, odds are. And I’m only middle aged.


Is that a good thing?


To the 35-40% of the country that’s on board with basically everything they’ve done or are likely to do, who constitute a reliable mega-bloc of Republican voters, yeah.


Every election is like a fashion show. Now America is dressed with a convicted felon and rapist.

Doesn't look good on the world stage.


America now stands in line with various developing nations and sports a convicted felon as head of state. Bravo!


He's our Sergio Berlusconi.


Except Trump calls people all kinds of bad things and it doesn't seem to hurt him.

Conclusion: You cannot arrogantly call someone a drooling fucktard. But you can call someone garbage non-arrogantly while also being a convicted felon.

The MAGA snowflakes prefer the felon, their soft skin can't seem to withstand arrogance.


Voters everywhere are stupid but in the country of exceptionalism, they lately seem to have become exceptionally stu... tolerant!


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: