Election, the formal process of selecting a person for public office or of accepting or rejecting a political proposition by voting.
I'm guessing there are other definitions.
Yes, the word "election" used to confirm or reject a government is probably somewhat unusual, especially if you come from a US background, where the Senate "confirms" the nominees for various executive agencies posts.
A much more common term for the process of yea/nay the whole government is a "vote of [no] confidence". This vote may or may not be solely on that issue, i.e. a yea/nay on a piece of specific legislation can imply to such a vote on the government, depending on constitutional arrangements/details.
Parliamentary procedures that outright swap a government for another (explicitly nominated counter-candidate) exist under the moniker "constructive vote of no confidence", but are used in fewer countries.
And, yeah, the EU really does use the word "elect" for the vote to confirm the Commission. Well, on that page. On another it says the EP "votes into office" the Commission. I guess one would have look up the relevant Treaty article for the most official wording... which is Article 17(7) of TFEU... which does use the term "elect[ed]" for that particular vote when it comes to the President of the Commission, but uses "vote of consent" for the vote on the whole Commission!
Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he does not obtain the required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure. [...]
The President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the other members of the Commission shall be subject as a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament. On the basis of this consent the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority.
Somewhat of an side, but the US Supreme Court weighted in on the matter of the meaning of a vote in the absence of liberty to choose (in the matter of state laws dismissing or punishing "faithless electors")... The interesting bits regarding the interpretation of plain words in SCOTUS decision are these:
Suppose a person always votes in the way his
spouse, or pastor, or union tells him to. We might question
his judgment, but we would have no problem saying that he
“votes” or fills in a “ballot.” In those cases, the choice is in
someone else’s hands, but the words still apply because they
can signify a mechanical act. Or similarly, suppose in a system allowing proxy voting (a common practice in the founding era), the proxy acts on clear instructions from the principal, with no freedom of choice. Still, we might well say
that he cast a “ballot” or “voted,” though the preference registered was not his own. For that matter, some elections
give the voter no real choice because there is only one name
on a ballot (consider an old Soviet election, or even a downballot race in this country). Yet if the person in the voting
booth goes through the motions, we consider him to have
voted. The point of all these examples is to show that although voting and discretion are usually combined, voting is
still voting when discretion departs. Maybe most telling,
switch from hypotheticals to the members of the Electoral
College. For centuries now, as we’ll later show, almost all
have considered themselves bound to vote for their party’s
(and the state voters’) preference.
(Justice Thomas disagreed with this portion of the majority decision but otherwise concurred with the overall SCOTUS decision by means of the Tenth Amendment.)