Should there be term limits for elected officials?

[minionofmidas]

Limiting politicians' terms is the voters' duty.

Of course, they need to be given an election setup that enables them to do so.

[minionofmidas]

So what, then, would be a current or historical exemplar of this bizarre notion of democracy?

[minionofmidas]

Of course 98-99% incumbent reelection rates are undemocratic. But they're a symptom of something, not a cause.

[minionofmidas]

Ah, but antitrust legislation does not (usually) provide blanket bans.

So... some system that tested whether politician x, who's held legislative office for at least so many years, has at one point used influence to ensure he's getting an even safer district; and then bans him from running for office in the future...
Yeah well, ensuring the thing is actually independent would probably be a pain in the ass.

[minionofmidas]

the point I was making is that, when you follow a line of logic down its road far enough, you sometimes hit a paradox. 

Not a very original point.

[minionofmidas]

America is a republic and not a democracy. There are limits on power. The majority doesn't always rule.

This idiotic distinction between "republic" and "democracy" is an exclusively American thing. It also unfortunately shows that you don't know the meaning of the words.

Surely the United Kingdom is democratic but not a republic?

Exactly. That's the non-idiotic, non-exclusively-American distinction that shows you know the meaning of the words.
Under the other concept, surely the UK is a Republic.