The EU Commission is appointed, not elected. Only the Parliament (MEPs) are elected.
What’s worse, the parliament cannot originate law. Only the unelected Commission can do so. And they can do it behind closed doors. This is a setup that’s ripe for corruption.
However, they're appointed by the EU Council (the heads of state, most of them elected, some appointed by a national parliament), and approved by the (elected) European Parliament.
At the cost of some transparency, this does make it possible to select a bit more for management skills instead of just campaigning skills.
The Commission is appointed by elected officials. That's the same way the US presidency works. It's also how the UK PM role works, or any minister in pretty much any democratic government. All of those are still referred to as "elected" in common tongue.
Actually it’s very different to the US presidency and UK PM.
US presidential candidates are appointed, but they must then be elected by the public.
UK PMs must be elected MPs, or at least must face an immediate by-election (by constitutional convention) if not already an MP
If back-hand deals, internal political favouritism, nepotism or opportunism lead to the appointment of an EU Commissioner there’s nothing the public can do about it.
Is this really true? Aren't the outcome of primary elections much much more important in determining who will be the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees than elected officials and party officials are?
Specifically, an unreliable source that gives fast answers to questions says that a candidate who wins enough primaries to get over half the delegates is almost certain to be the presidential nominee for his or her party.
I think you're mistaken about appointment/election:
* Citizens vote in a nationwide election every four years.
* Those votes determine electors in each state — this is part of the Electoral College system.
* The Electoral College then formally elects the president based on those state results.
* The candidate who receives at least 270 of the 538 electoral votes becomes president.
So while there’s a layer of formality through the Electoral College, the president is ultimately chosen by voters, not appointed by any government body.
* It doesn’t have ongoing powers, authority, or political discretion like a parliament or the European Council.
* It’s a one-time, ceremonial body that meets once every four years to cast votes reflecting (in nearly all cases) the popular vote results in each state.
2. Electors don’t deliberate or choose freely.
* In almost every state, electors are legally bound (or at least politically bound) to vote according to their state’s popular vote.
* So the outcome is functionally determined by voters, not by an independent decision of the Electoral College.
3. The EU analogy misrepresents the role of the Electoral College.
* In the EU, citizens elect national governments, which then appoint members of the European Council, who negotiate and nominate the EU Commission — a genuine appointment process.
* In the U.S., the electors are not government officials making appointments; they are agents executing the people’s will as expressed in the election.
---
In the US, the people elect the President, because electors vote as their state’s voters directed.
The EU Commission analogy doesn’t fit, because that’s an appointment process made by governments, not a formalization of a direct vote.
Now you're moving the goal posts by post-facto introducing all sorts of qualifiers.
Fact of the matter is, neither the US President nor the EU Commission are directly elected. Both are appointed with one layer of indirection between them and a direct vote.
Either we call both elected or we call both unelected. To do so for one, but not the other is anti-European propaganda.
