TL no more restrict freedom than requiring a candidate be at least 18 or 21 years old to qualify for the ballot. Or requiring a candidate be an American citizen or live in the district they seek to represent.

Saying that elections serve as term limits is true, but an election is how we got term limits - the people collected signatures and amended their constitution to limit terms.

The "experience" card seems only to apply to politicians. Imagine applying for a job in the private sector and telling the interviewer that it will take you six to eight years before you can do a decent job!

There are some down-sides to TL. But I was a staffer in the House before TL kicked-in and I remember how appropriations were irrationally doled-out due to Rep. Dominic Jacobetti's endless Chairmanship of the approps committee. That's how we got THREE public universities in the sparsely-populated upper peninsula.

On balance, TL beats crusty, old dinosaurs propped up by unfair campaign advantages over opponents -  such as state-paid mailings into these incumbents districts and the largess of the lobby corps.

But I'll make one correction to what you said about TL being no different from an age or citizenship requirement.

Personally, I'd lean toward keeping them in place, as-is.  The thought of entrenched politicians wielding too much power for too many years out-weighs my concerns over State Rep VanderWhoSit's trouble finding the men's room.

What's happened is that we all discovered that Term Limits was nothing more than a political gimmick used mainly by Republicans to score points on entrenched incumbents. Oh sure, there were a few true believers who actually believed in term limits. But most of the politicians who ran on term limits and used them to attack their incumbent opponents suddenly discovered that when it was time for them to leave, they didn't think they were a good idea.

So you'll hold Mark Shcauer to that same standard, right?  

He pledged to his constituents that he'd serve a full four years in the Michigan Senate and only 8 months in balked when presented with the chance to run for Congress.

It seems like every other NoviDemo post has this phrase in it.  He uses it so much, it lacks the punch it should have.  And certainly - No Democrats are ever the "Poster Boy" for something, only Republicans (but we can all get along, right Nick?).

So now, Hoekstra is a poster boy for hipocrisy (when nobody can link to quotes, speeches, video, or news stories where he promised to voluntarily term limit himself).  But Mark Schauer isn't a poster boy for hipocrisy.  

I see term limits as an important "check/balance" against elected officials who have totally forgotten, or choose to willfuly ignore, the concept of citizen government.

Public service was to have been an interlude in one's career where they can serve their fellow citizens for a given period of time. Afterwards, they would return home to live under the very same laws and regulations that helped to promulgate.

It was never intended to be a career choice unto itself.

Why do you think that aisde from Commissioner Drolet's example above, there was also resentment about the time that Richard Austin & Frank Kelly have spent in office?

I also see any attempt to dilute or "modify" term limits as counterproductive, and in a sense, an indictment against the leadership of political parties, be they Republican or democratic.

Is there some defect in the quality of the members from either party, that the respective party leadership feels that it must run the same person over, and over, and over, and over again for the same position?

What does this say about their ability to recruit capable new members and then prepare qualified candidates for elected office?

What does this also say about their ability to bring in new people with fresh ideas to address current issues while still adhering to party ideology?

And it seems to have been forgotten that we do have term limits on the federal level, specifically the 22nd Amendment, that has been in place far longer than term limits have been in Michigan.

Nick, I have no problem with people philosophically supporting longer-term limits, but I presume you oppose the "stealth elections" held in May by school districts, and can support consolidation?  Any Republican who votes for a special election in mid-January to put a term limit ballot question on the ballot is betraying that cause!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  It's an odd time of the year to hold an election, there will be lower turnout because people who choose to participate in generals don't always choose to participate in primaries (non-partisan), and the legislature knows it (indeed, an early Feb. primary might render it impossible as the 90 day effect rule might run past the filing deadlines in May -- so 1/15 is special in more ways than one).  Of course, they don't care, because it has to be a special election for the "senior class" to survive, and that's cross-partisan crass self-interest.  If they philosophically believe its the right thing to extend term limits, then let's do it right.  In a general election where everyone is likely to vote.

Why does lower turnout invalidate the results of the vote?  People have the chance to vote on something that may be important for them, they will be notified.  You haven't convinced me.  You haven't shown me why doing the right thing requires "more people" to vote in the election for it?  Clearly you didn't mean to equate a 55% turnout with "everyone", and mean that a 30% turnout is less important.  

_________________
Hoekstra didn't even campaign full time until July, when he took a month of vacation, and he was back at his office yesterday morning after staying up until 3 a.m. absorbing the stunning news that he had knocked off a 13-term incumbent.

An advocate of Congressional reform and term limits, Hoekstra pledged during the campaign that he would serve no more than 12 years in the House and sharply questioned Vander Jagt's commitment to representing local, rather than national, interests.