Venezuela and Impeachment

So, I was just reading some propaganda about Hugo Chavez, and then to counteract the bullshit, I began reading some articles in favor of him, and of course most of the truth was found in the middle. No, he's not satan, or some despot, and no he's not going to help us all start a new socialist revolution, but he has done very good things for Venezuela, and he has pissed off the American government/corporate groups through his use of his nations oil reserves to actually profit his country, and it's people, at least half the time, as opposed to before when virtually all profits were going to the big oil companies.

Either way, he is a controversial figure, and I'm sure you're all aware of the facts, so I'll go on to other things. In my reading I came across something interesting. Evidently, in the Venezuelan constitution there is a clause that says this, "All magistrates and other offices (including the president) filled by popular vote are subject to revocation. Once half (their) term of office....has elapsed, 20% of (registered) voters (by petition may call for) a referendum to revoke such official's mandate. When a number of voters equal to or greater than the number of those who elected the official vote in favor of revocation (provided the total is 25% or more of registered voters), the official's mandate shall be deemed revoked...."

Now that is a damn interesting clause. I can't think of any parallel to it in our "democracy," one in which no president has ever been successfully impeached, not even ones so atrocious as George W. Bush or Andrew Jackson. Shouldn't, in a system where the majority elects its leaders, there be a way for the people to directly oust those leaders, if they so chose? Short of violence, anyway.

On closer inspection we realize that this idea involves some pretty big numbers, for instance 20% of the registered voters is bigger than it sounds, but let's look at an example, again from Venezuela, where 4.7 million signatures were gathered for the highly controversial (at least outside the country) referendum on extending consecutive term limits. In a country with only around 15.6 million registered voters this is more than a 20%, and if those signatures were gathered for this instead, would be more than enough to begin the process of ousting an elected official. So it proves it is at least possible, and provides more evidence that people in Venezuela actually like Hugo Chavez. It's worth mentioning that over 50% of Venezuela's population is registered to vote, but I digress.

Shouldn't we have something similar? In the most "free," "democratic" country on earth?
Shouldn't we at least be able to match this "totalitarian regime?"

It all leads to what I don't understand about the western press. Venezuela is usually referred to as nondemocratic. Authoritarian. Lumped together with China and Iran and North Korea and the like. But Venezuela IS a democracy. Hugo Chavez is ridiculously popular, and sweeps the elections whenever he runs. In 2006 he won 62% of the vote, in a country where, again, over 50% of the population is registered, with a 75% turnout, and a voting process performed under the auspices of international observers. Even if one might argue against his policies, hell even if we agreed he was satan incarnate, it wouldn't change the fact that he was democratically elected.

Isn't that supposedly all the U.S. government officially wants?