Whether or not I like the free market is not important to this debate (that's another topic). I'm not sure about your assertion that most jobs are done at-will employment. The only jobs I've done under at-will (hourly) employment were unskilled -- being a line cook, shelving books etc. On the other hand, the jobs that use my skills are almost always contracts: I promise to deliver a custom item, the client promises to pay me. There is a deadline, and after that deadline I am no longer employed.
If they gave you the use of some expensive equipment or other resources to do the job you're contracted to do and then you used it for some other purpose which indirectly benefits you (like investing in some business that you own stock in), and this happens before the deadline, should they still wait until the deadline to see if you fulfilled your obligations?
I'm not saying that politicians should be guaranteed office for their entire term --but perhaps the system should include performance evaluations based on their campaign promises. (Since that would be their end of the contract.)
Its much more about criminal activity that they have "immunity" to (they think they're above the law and have written into the laws that is true) than about if they do what they said or not.
Then don't elect them -- if they have a history of corruption, don't vote for them. If they don't have a history of corruption, and it becomes apparent during their term, don't re-elect them.
You made an assumption, and I'm going to need a reason to believe that assumption. The assumption is if a majority of people want a certain political party (with various second, third, and fourth... choices) to win and choose their voting strategy toward that goal, then what the most people acted toward will be the result of the vote. We have observed in the USA election system, for example, that if x percent of people want the Libertarians to win, then much less than x percent of people will vote for Libertarians. Your assumption relies on x percent of desire translating to x fraction of votes, and that's not what happens. The system of everyone getting 1 vote for who they want to win is based on incorrect game-theory and has been proven to result in 2 parties dominating politics that more people vote against than vote for, and based on that alone it is invalid, and so is your assumption.
I more or less agree -- I just disagree with "early termination." Treat others how you want to be treated.
I want for myself and others to live in a world where everyone is accountable and doesn't get a free ticket to do whatever they want for 4 years and only pay for it at the end. Imagine if police worked that way. Officer, he killed my wife. Yes, but we have to give him 4 years to bring her back to life, in case new medical technology is invented or in case he can make up for it in some other way. We have to give him until the end of his contract. Its a relevant analogy, since these "elected" people make choices that increase or decrease the amounts of wars and people dieing by millions of lives. We need an emergency stop option.
We already have the ability to make big and small changes...it's called elections. If the majority (and by majority I mean a clear majority) wanted radical change, we'd have it. Truth is, the majority is ok with how we're doing things.
Then lets all vote for world peace, for all governments of all countries to withdraw their armies. See how well the ability to make big changes works then. They have money to make from the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex and would ignore such a vote for big change.
The phrase Witch-Hunt was just that, a phrase. It was not a specific reference to a particular Witch-Hunt, but was an expression, used to mean the action of trying to find "the person responsible" for whatever crime was committed.
"the action of trying to find "the person responsible" for whatever crime was committed" is very important. Its called law enforcement.
When members of government say they are above the law (they call it "immunity") and use that to get away with crimes, it is the peoples' responsibility to create new parts of government, implemented on open source technology or any other way needed to get it done, and to make sure every member of government obeys the laws.
Nobody is above the law, period. Any law that applies to some people but not others, is no law at all. For example, "jim crow laws" required that black people only drink from certain water fountains and sit in the back of busses when white people wanted the front seats. Are we really going to do that again for government vs civilians, having different laws for different people? If nobody is above the law, only reasonable laws will be made and unreasonable laws repealed, since they know the laws apply to them too.
Often it involves a lot of finger pointing, a lack of evidence,
So when an investigator starts a new case, he should quit because he starts with "a lack of evidence" and is forced to pick people based on "a lot of finger pointing" to ask questions to?
and someone taking the fall, when in fact "the person responsible" may have been a group of people, or a series of social/economic events.
Blame often should be on a group of people instead of anyone individually. That's the primary way politicians stay in office, by distributing the blame across a large number of politicians. Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex is supported by a majority of politicians in USA (I know this because it continues expanding), but increasing the amount of war because its profitable should be illegal. We should have a way to fire all such politicians who participated in spreading the blame across their group, even though no specific politician did it. They work for us. They don't have a right to keep their jobs, so if firing some group of politicians would, as we the people prefer, improve our country, then that is enough reason to do it.
Also, war should be illegal. Did they ever ask us to vote on if war should be legal? No, they just start wars without our democratic permission, and make lots of money on weapons sales and advancing military technology. But we have to advance our military tech faster than the other countries for defense. Wrong. That is exactly the idea that causes escalation of conflicts to World War 3.
If you think a Politician Impeach Switch is too strong, how about a Politician Investigate Switch which, by a majority vote, would cause private investigators and other people who support the Politician Investigate Switch to investigate the target person voted to be investigated? That way, they couldn't just change the subject when it comes up in a debate, for example. Millions of peoples' attention on one accusation against them is a very strong force.
That's how the Politician Impeach Switch is supposed to work, when its just getting started, since its the only practical way we have to implement it. Only later we would get integration with governments. We can do it completely through open source systems and voluntary agreement, if enough people think its a good idea and volunteer a little of their attention toward corrupt politicians, like the Wall Street Protesters and other groups recently did.
