I’m not sure if that is an accurate title for this question, but I couldn’t think of an inverse word for elected.
Anyway, here’s my question. Why did the founders of the United States’ government decide to have representatives elected at intervals rather than removed when their popularity diminished? To a naïve citizen like me, it seems more logical to elect representatives and allow them to hold the offices until the majority of the constituents don’t agree with them anymore. When the people’s confidence disappears the people would then elect another person for replacement. For an example, say Senator Smith is elected one year. Every year after the people can cast a non-confidence vote against the Senator. If more than say 50% of the people vote, then the Senators office become available to others.
The House of Representatives was designed to be subject to the whims of the populace every two years. The Senate was designed to be deliberative and more stable, that’s why Senators get six-year terms and weren’t even populary elected until the 20th Century.
The British Parliament may be subject to popular whims, but if the PM’s party has enough of a majority, s/he will hold on to the job as long as constitutionally allowed.
Italy’s governments change so quickly because there are so many different parties that the Premier almost always is the head of a coalition and it never seems to take long for one party in the coalition to change sides.
I think also that in the UK (or any parlimentary government), only the Prime Minister is subject to votes of no confidence, not the MP’s.
Anyway, if senators and congresspeople had to worry about keeping everybody happy every year, there wouldn’t be time to DO anything. The framers were very smart in setting to terms, as noted above by BobT. Although, maybe it should be changed to three years for the House, it seems that as soon as they’re in, they’re looking to get back.