California voters are generally divided into two schools of thought on term limits for their state legislators, some of the most restrictive in the nation. Currently, a politician is limited to six years in the assembly and eight years in the senate for a total of 14 years; Proposition 93 would change the limit to 12 years total in either house.

The first school believes that — however great the deficiencies of our state government — our problems will be made even worse by kicking out all the experienced legislators and putting the state budget in the hands of beginners. Because of term limits, one-third of the representatives in the state assembly are freshmen, and none has more than six years of experience. While legislators under pressure from term limits are constantly jockeying for position to run for other offices, control is left in the hands of lobbyists and unelected legislative aides — the only experienced people in Sacramento. According to this view, term limits are a barrier to good government and should be relaxed or eliminated.

The second view is that California’s politicians are self-serving and venal, better at finding new ways to keep themselves in power and expand their perks than they are at solving the state’s problems. Once elected, honest people become corrupted by whispering lobbyists and the thrill of power, and arrogantly cease to care about those who selected them. There is ample evidence for this view: consider the districts our legislators gerrymandered for themselves — not only is it harder to lose a legislative election in California than in any of the other 49 states, but our politicians are also less likely to be voted out than Soviet Party delegates at the height of Stalinism. They have made themselves impossible to remove. According to this view, term limits are one of the few remaining checks on the power of these problematic politicians.

But there is no reason to choose. We can have the best of both worlds — experienced legislators who are also accountable to their constituents. Thus the standard compromise floated by good government advocates and newspaper editorial boards: relax the term limits and make the legislative districts fairer at the same time. There is no reason to throw everyone out, but it is equally problematic to keep everyone in. Make the districts competitive and let the people choose.

For voters of either school of thought, Feb. 5’s Proposition 93 is a step backward. To those who want more experienced legislators in Sacramento, Proposition 93 is a setback because it reduces total term limits to 12 years, rather than the current 14. On the other hand, those in the legislators-are-self-serving-rascals camp note that the bill is written with a special exception for our current legislators, allowing termed-out Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez another six years as speaker, and termed-out Senate Majority Leader Don Perata another four. Both are campaigning hard to get their terms extended. Whether you want harsher term limits because politicians are self-serving, or more lenient term limits because politicians are inexperienced, there is something for every voter not to like.

In reality, though, Proposition 93 will probably have some good effects as well as the bad ones. Though it would shorten term limits, it would make them more flexible, reducing the jockeying — perhaps giving politicians a chance to spend some time thinking about how to represent their constituents. The flexibility will mean less experienced state senators, a downside, but more experienced state assembly members, an upside. Taken together, the state will arguably be incrementally better-governed. But will voters be willing to hold their noses and vote yes?

Though it is probably a marginal step forward, this deeply flawed legislation speaks volumes about how Sacramento is run. Think of it this way: if this is the legislation you produce, what are your priorities? The legislators in Sacramento — knowing that California has both the least accountable and least experienced legislators in the country — literally said to themselves, “the problem we need to solve is extending terms for sitting legislators.” That, not political reform or real solutions, is what they decided was worth putting on the ballot. Before, term limits were a tradeoff between inexperience and unaccountability — these legislators figured out a way to get more of them both! It’s a bill, sadly, that reflects legislators’ own self interest much more than it reflects the interests of the voters.

Whether or not Proposition 93 passes, Californians should take a serious look at broader reform. Every year there are promises to fix the gerrymandered districts and every time the legislative leadership finds an excuse to stall. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plan last year was narrowly defeated, and soon afterward the Democratic legislators’ alternative was abandoned.

The time for excuses has passed. Legislators should be both experienced and accountable. They should not serve for life, and they should not get kicked out automatically — the people should decide based on each legislator’s record. That’s how a democracy works. Other states have that — is it too much to ask for in California?