I understand what you are saying, but I find it non-responsive to the question I raised.
If you are suggesting that deviation from campaign promises out to cripple incumbants ability to govern we would have an unwholly mess. I don't know of a single candidate in my lifetime who has not done so. That said, in certain moods I have often thought that each candidate should have to take at least three hard positions during the campaign, and no matter what, short of a voted referendum, they should have to stick to those pledges of be automatically impeached.
My question was whether in equity incumbant winners shouldn't have more time to govern since their terms were in a real way truncated. I know this cannot happen for practical reasons, it was just a discussion point.