Under some conditions, putting limits on the number of terms a person can serve in any particular elected office might make sense.
Say, the political system had so many quality candidates clamoring to serve that good volunteers with needed skills were falling by the wayside before getting a chance to help forward the American way. The people might want a way to allow all those deserving folks to have a turn at the public helm.
Or, say a despicable despot, ruling with an iron and unrelenting fist, held the system and people hostage. In that case, defining the amount of suffering to be endured would probably be a welcome thing.
Unfortunately, the first scenario is fantasy and, thank goodness, so is the second.
In the most recent round of elections, numerous incumbents went unopposed. For example, the entire slate of state legislators from the 21st District got a free pass.
Now, maybe those devoted public servants are doing a fine job and voters are satisfied, maybe not, but in either case, political opponents shouldn’t need term limits as a spur.
Neither should term limits be a boost to potential candidates concerned they might come up a bit short to the incumbent. If the free market is good enough to be the underpinnings of the economic system, it’s good enough to serve as the foundation for the political system.
Ultimately, it is the voters — disinterested as they may be at times — who set term limits, and they can do it after one, two or 10, as they see fit.