Watch out! The anti-democratic forces are on the prowl once again. Crusaders for term limits claim to have the public interest in mind. Yet their agenda conceals an unwillingness to confront the real problems of contemporary politics.

In Massachusetts, this cowardice takes the form of Question Number Four, which will appear on ballots this Election Day, Nov. 8. The measure would set limits on the number of times a candidate's name could be printed on a state ballot.

Most incumbents in state office would be denied ballot access after serving for eight years, as would members of the U.S. House of Representatives. U.S. Senators would be able to serve 12 years before being removed from the ballot.

Incumbents could still win election by way of write-in votes. But candidates elected to state office in this way would have to serve without salary.

Around the country, even more drastic steps are being proposed. Most come in the form of actual term limits, which bar candidates from holding office for too many consecutive terms regardless of any write-in support they may receive.

To date, at least 16 states have either term limits or ballot access restriction on the books. And the issue figures prominently on the 1994 ballot around the country.

But term limits are not the best way to oust crusty old politicians. There is a much simpler way: vote them out.

That's right. Surprising as it may seem, the founders of this country, in their great wisdom, set up our political system so that the people could discard ineffective leaders. It's called an election; look into it.

Aside from the constitutional problems involved in state regulation of federal offices (Arkansas's term limit law is set to come before the Supreme Court in late November), the call for term limits is both foolish and spineless.

The term limit movement serves to continue the ridiculous tradition established by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

In electing a commander-in-chief, why shouldn't Americans be allowed to choose an experienced politician whom they trust and respect? We may yet regret this rash decision made out of partisan fear in the 1940s. (Imagine if FDR had been yanked from office in the middle of World War Two.)

Some would argue that since the presidency has been subjected to these regulations, Congress should be reined in as well, in order to balance the branches of government more fairly.

Such logic, however, only compounds an already undesirable situation. Furthermore, it accomplishes few of the goals that reformers are out to achieve.

The term limit camp argues that such legislation would focus incumbent's sights on policy rather than on politics. But incumbents would still have their sights set on re-election if term limits were imposed, for every term except the last one.

If a member of the House of Representatives currently spends the majority of his/her time worrying about re-election (a debatable point), why would an eight-year term limit eliminate political jockeying from the first three election cycles?