> I agree. The rub is that it's not usually the taxpayers making that decision, but their elected representatives.
Sorry - you don't get to hide behind representatives.
> I believe there's already a commonly applied differentiation between appointed and civil service[1] positions.
While there is a difference, the "you can't do things that piss off the voters" rule applies to both.
The representatives will, in practice, make decisions under the system you're describing.
It was called the "spoils system" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system), it turns out to be a major vector of abuse by elected officials, and is the reasons the US civil service has safeguards for dismissing civil servants.
I agree. The rub is that it's not usually the taxpayers making that decision, but their elected representatives.
I believe there's already a commonly applied differentiation between appointed and civil service[1] positions.
[1] I don't know if these are the actual terms, so corrections are welcome.