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?

Besides, re-election means facing the public. Term limits would create a new, politically dangerous category of "lame duck" representatives and senators. These representatives would become completely unaccountable to the public in their final terms.

Term limits are also a raw deal for smaller constituencies. One of the ways that a state like Alaska, with only one delegate in the House, can increase its influence is by sencing a qualified member back to Congress each election. Gradually, that representative amasses seniority and respect, possibly even chairing a committee of particular interest to the state.

If Congressional elections are rigged to include only newcomers, small states will be like expansion teams lost in a sea of perennial contenders. Even the goal of filling Congress with fresher faces that are more in touch with constituents will not directly follow. Without any campaign finance reform, races for open seats would still favor contenders connected into political machinery and money.

The true obstacle to a more open forum for ideas and policy debate is inherent in the two-party system. The fact is, in our world of Republicans and Democrats, only candidates that fit into those two molds have any real chance at running a campaign capable of winning an office. Reformers must consider other solutions. For example, campaign, finance reform is necessary even if term limits are imposed.

To facilitate the freer exchange of ideas that critics seek, Americans should support placing ceiling on campaign spending and forming more political parties. It is unequal access to money, not ballots, that entrenches incumbents in Washington.

Yet even these solutions are not enough to rejuvenate American politics. Office seekers must have the courage to run campaigns based on ideas and principles, and the electorate must reward those that do with a ticket to City Hall, the state capital, or Washington, D.C. No amount of constitutional tinkering will accomplish that.

We need a political reawakening we must study issues instead of soundbites.

Barring such a revolution in political attitudes, term limits will only grant the artificial appearance of political renewal. Voters must take the responsibility to be educated and informed, or to settle for what is handed to them.

So the next time someone tells you that you would be better off without a certain member of Congress, go ahead and agree with them. But don't let them decide for you. Vote no on Number Four and vote the bums out.