under our current campaign finance system.

without incumbency, name recognition, etc...the seat would basically just go to the highest fundraiser. itd just be a revolving door of lobbyists and donor appointed candidates.

and you would wipe out a ton of institutional knowledge gained experience throughout several eras, administrations, etc.

repubs regularly swap out seat holders more frequently than dems (for various reasons) and look what it does to their ability to govern once they have power.

then imagine entire waves of politicians being lame ducks at the same time with no reason to care about voters electing them again. no real reason to do anything other than ram through handouts and favors to the corporations who will prolly employ you next. or no real reason to even show up to work and do your job at all.

if you look at states that have implemented shorter legislature term limits like mo and ne...you will see the negative effect it has had on their politics.

plus...its sort of a bandaid for undesirable voter behavior. most of the onus for poor representation belongs with the people who continually/willfully put them in office. term limits wouldnt necessarily fix that. its more likely it would just make it worse.

term limits for judges make more sense tho because theyre appointed and not elected. so they have no accountability to voters or no performance assessment at the ballot box. and the reasoning for the super long terms (the law doesnt change with every political tide) has pretty much been thrown out the door as these conservative judges have become more noticeably partisan/activist.