Change versus Experience

I received my California absentee ballot and noticed that one of the myriad ballot initiatives would alter term limits. I would allow maximum of 12 total years in both chamber as opposed to the current limits of six years in the Assembly and eight in the Senate.

The whole point of term limits is to kick experienced people out, the underlying assumption being that long term exposure to power eventually corrupts. In California, term limits now mean that the Assembly acts as a training ground where legislators cut their teeth before going on to the Senate. But what is the right formula? Where do constituents get the most bang for buck with experience without being stuck with bad apples who have sold out to the status quo?

Obviously, California is still deciding, but I think this debate shines some light on the current change versus experience, Obama versus Clinton debate. We like our politicians to know what they're doing but when do they start to know too much? Do we need someone who knows the ways of Washington or someone who knows the ways of Washington must change?

An interesting experiment may be to look at the vote totals for each in term-limited states versus states without term-limits. Presumably the former will lean in favor of "citizen leaders" while the latter will lean in favor of "professional politicians."