I didn't say it was some kind of dictatorship. I do note, however, that the bulk of the EU executive is selected by an organization that is maximally disconnected from the voting public. And this seems to be by design.

Consider the situation described in TFA. Let's say you, as an EU citizen, wanted to change the makeup of the Commission to rectify this. You could vote for a new MEP, but this would have relatively little impact since the Parliament doesn't select most members of the Commission. You could vote for a new national government (assuming this was your highest-priority issue!), and then hope that the heads-of-state would appoint a new President. But this would not replace the remaining 26/27 Commission members. Finally, you could hope that your new government would appoint new Ministers to the CotEU.

But the CotEU has many Ministers and a complex rotating presidency. The Council also has policy "configurations" in which different national ministers have varying degrees of influence. So in the worst case, it could take years for your new Ministers to reach a position where they could influence the composition of the Commission. Even if voters in many countries felt as you did, it might be very difficult to turn this into concrete changes the makeup of the Commission. It is hard not to see this indirection as the key design goal of this structure.

And maybe in the end that's a good thing. TFA, however, makes me worry that it can facilitate some very bad outcomes.

You absolutely do not understand the role of the European institutions and give the Commission much more power than it actually has. And you fail to understand the EU states are actually souvereign nations and states like Texas or California.

Heads of states and the ministers very often don't represent the populations of their states, only a very small part of it.

You mean like most GOP presidents in recent history not winning the majority vote? The US are not part of the EU so...

The differences are much bigger than that. The head of state/leading party that formed the government has only 15% support in my country. That's possible because it's a political compromise of the parliament majority, and they're severely limited in whatever they can do here by the parliament. It's very different political system.

Like in Germany, were absolutr majorities for one party basically do not exist. Hence coalition governments (we never tried a minority government like in Spain for some reason).

But claiming that 85% voted "against" the leading party getting 15% is quite a stretch. Usually coalition parties have enough common policy goals to work together, meaning interests of the electorate overlap enough as well.

Butvthisbis just like representative democracies are suppossed to work, there is nothing illegitimate or undemocratic about it. We talk about national governments and parliaments here, not the election of the student speaker for a class in elementary school.

And you said it yourself:

>> it's a political compromise of the parliament majority

And that majority was dully and democratically voted for. The the results are somewhat ambigious is to be expected, not beong able to cope with that isbone of the reasons wannabe-authocrats can gain so much traction by promising "strong leadership" (a promise that never materializes besides oppression and cleptocrats on behalf if the government party and its members).