I'm lost, aren't you guys saying the same thing?

I don't think a classic WWII-style war between countries is in the cards (so I voted Low Chance, 'cause you never know...). I do think there's a high chance of more and bigger conflicts though, I just think they'll be more akin to civil wars. The polarization within countries all across the world is just getting bigger and bigger, and in many of those places that's bound to explode sometime soon. You've already seen some of that in Muslim countries, but the way things are going in the US and some places in Europe I can't imagine there won't be some violent conflicts here and there.

Belgium finally starting to get in form with this 4-0 against Hungary. It'll be interesting to see if they can finally win from Wales this time around after a draw and loss in the qualifiers. In theory we have the (much) better players, but it's taking us way too long to become a real team. Not sure if Hungary is a good enough indicator though... fingers crossed for Friday.

All very true, except the part about this being a 'progressives' only problem. A good part of the electorate will indeed often act like you describe, but that is regardless of their political conviction.

The difference with the US system isn't nearly as big as you think it is. As you know, living in a republic (and technically not a democracy) the American people do not elect their representatives directly, instead they vote for delegates that elect representatives on their behalf (electors). These electors are not bound by federal law to follow the popular vote, although 26 states have state legislature on the book that requires their electors to follow the popular vote. I'm sure you'll remember that Gore won the popular vote, but Bush ended up being president in 2000.

The EU itself is a parliamentary democracy (like a good deal of it's member states), where you vote for political parties instead of people. These parties have a published an ordered list of representatives indicating the order in which they will assign people to parliament, depending on how many seats they win in the election. So you have a pretty good idea who you're supporting. Often, you'll even get the chance to influence the order of this list during the election itself, by casting so-called "name votes". After the election, a set of parties will try form a coalition that has at least 50%+1 seats in parliament. The biggest party there will nominate the president of the European Commission, which is currently the EPP (European People's Party, the economical and social conservatives over here). The biggest problem is that these pan-European parties aren't really political parties in the classic sense of the word, they are more like a club of likeminded national parties. In fact, when casting your vote, you don't vote for the EPP directly, you vote for your national party that affiliates itself with the EPP. The system is incredibly similar to other forms of representative democracies, but it's all just a little bit more complicated and difficult to understand, which disenfranchises the electorate and makes them feel as if they have little to no control (while in fact, they don't have any more or less control over their government than in the US).

Unfortunately, a lot of national politicians have gotten in the habit of 'blaming Brussels' for not being able to make good on this or that promise, because it's 'out of their control'. That gives the EU a bad rep with a lot of people, but again comparing to the US that isn't too different from state politicians complaining about the federal government's meddling.

Or, now that that pesky contrarian member that always wanted special treatment is leaving the club, maybe the rest of us can start thinking about a truly United Europe that effectively works.