[ConstantineX]

I have some thoughts on the first:

Term limits - Having short term limits increases public accountability, so if you assume a perfectly rational (by rational I mean voting for their long-term collective interest) populace, it would seem like a free lunch. But we know that the population votes for its special interests, can be mob-like and vote for only short-term gain, so the benefit of having a long term limits is that you allow prudent politicians who have a bit of a "lag" in implementing legislation that doesn't perfectly fit public opinion. Lots of bills that pass the House don't make it through the Senate for example, for prudent reasons on the Senators' parts. Representatives are usually more "craven", vocal proponents for their constituents, which is often not socially optimal.

I believe every politician once elected into office faces a dilemma. Most have genuine ideological beliefs that guide them - because people have innate biological instincts that help them separate truth-tellers from fakers - but those are easily discardable in favor of political success, that of course is why they are politicians.

You look around and wonder after the '70s and tons of historical data the Senate and House are still passing "price-gouging" legislation and local municipalities pass rent-control. This isn't any malevolent intent or grand-standing on the part of politicians but a real reflection of the changing mood of their constituents. But the politician knows that he will also end up having to deal with the adverse effects that legislation creates on his watch. Politicians with long terms can outright game the system, not delivering immediate gratification in hope that the shock goes away - but that's not very prudent, because voting "NO" is far too clear an indictment of a specific politician (see Adanthar, "Ron Paul is an opponent of the Civil Rights Act"). So they generally water down bills using gamemanship allowed by their long terms like arcane knowledge of Senate rules and filibusters and such.

Keeping in mind this trade-off, I don't think term limits are the real problem with democracy. If they were too short, nothing politically daring could be done. If they are too long, there's a lack of public accountability and incumbents tend to be re-elected. But in both cases most politicians really try to deliver what their constituents want - but they, and society doesn't want to deal with the collective results of their actions, ironically for collective action reasons. That's always the real problem with democracy.