She was nominated by the European Council (=Heads of gov't of EU countries) because the EU parliament is a divided mess and the leading parties have no internal cohesion whatsoever. Parties at the european level are disparate coalitions between national parties and MEPs follow the national party line. The decision was made by national governments and rubber-stamped by the parliament.
This is fundamentally different from how a PM is voted in a traditional parliamentary system where an MP leads the party during the election process and elected as PM after a clear victory or negotiations between MPs.
Having a prominent MP leader like that is one of my second least favorite part of parliamentary governments[1]. Politics and governance aren't so simple that one person will ever be found that fairly represents the majority of the populace because the majority of the populace can't agree on multiple things. It's better for the majority of the power in governments to be devolved down to MPs voting on matters with the executive branch just being a formality for PR on the local and international stage - as well as being entrusted with emergency powers if we ever need to get anything done.
We're a people with a wide spectrum of beliefs - we should be represented by a wide spectrum of MPs... never by a single voice.
1. My first being whenever a single party actually wins a majority.
> We're a people with a wide spectrum of beliefs - we should be represented by a wide spectrum of MPs... never by a single voice.
This is a fair statement. I'm not from the EU but I think it's true for basically any society. Also a lot of the dysfunction in the EU is obviously by design and it's supposed to instill cooperation and deliberation between different stakeholders.
Still, in politics "getting things done" is very important, imo much more important than representation because the main job of a government is to govern and a fairly balanced government that fails to govern will lose support very quickly and become unrepresentative/useless. Also if someone can't get things done, others will do it and force their hand, like the case of the election of the EU commission president. Or practically everything the UN does.
The good thing about a government by a single party or a well defined coalition is that you know what they roughly stand for, what they don't stand for, who is for them and who is against. You can support them or vote against them. In an election one side wins. Being an incumbent is difficult so in the next the other side wins, they are supposed to balance each other that way.
What is the alternative of a de facto coalition between the right, center-left and liberals? Which of these is really in power? Who are you going to vote for if you don't like where the things are headed?
Looking at the EU parliament (or the parliaments of many EU countries) the main alternatives are fascism-lite and actual fascism. That's the risk of plethoric supranational governing bodies like the EU or very large coalition governments, they rob people of viable democratic alternatives.
I think you pointed the defining aspect here. Having many opinions is inefficient but representative. Having one winner is efficient but lopsided. You can't have the cake and eat it, so each society had to decide which way (and revisit the decision over time).
I was not very clear on what I meant, sorry for that.
I meant that whatever the government metaphorical "you" voted in, has voice in EC.
In fact current Lisboa treaty came into effect after previous reform attempt was torpedoed in part for "taking away sovereignty" by giving more power to European Parliament vs European Council - where the national governments have power.
