Karl Popper takes a parallel approach to epistemology and political theory. In his theory of knowledge, he is not worried about how theories provide a representation of reality, but rather with how they can be falsified or disproved through critical experiments. Similarly, in politics he is not concerned with how governments represent the people, but simply with how the citizenry can throw out and replace the government. It's a refreshingly pragmatic approach.

It's easily refuted by pointing out the identical nature of the two major parties in the US, in practice if not in platform. It's been demonstrated over and over again that we can't "throw the bums out," because the replacement bums will soon emulate their predecessors.

I don't think this refutes the essence of this idea, i.e. bloodless transfer of power. Sure that all new politicians end up being like the old ones, but thanks to short terms and established procedures of power transfer politicians don't feel the need of killing their way to the top or violently defending their seats. After all, even if you lose your seat this time, you can get it back in few years.