Term Limits

Let's take something relatively simple and attempt to solve it as a Win-Win. Term Limits.
Those in favor of them cite the incredible power of incumbancy; with over 98% of elected officials re-elected, despite polls showing that majorities are disappointed in the service of those they have elected to serve.

On the other side of the issue, those against term limits primary complaint is that preventing the public from re-electing a qualified person, who has great experience in the position, is not in the best interest of the electorate.

If, however, term limits were not permanent, if there were a reasonable limit on the limits, both sides can get what they want. For example, after 12 years in any elected office, the office holder may not hold that office again until 4 years have elapsed. After that, they are eligible once again to hold the same office for up to 12 years, followed by another hiatus.

This would allow wonderful public servants to serve as many years as they wish, would allow the electorate to re-elect those wonderful public servants, and would still allow for fresh blood, innovative ideas, and a valid comparison, by allowing a newcomer in to the office every twelve years. An important ancillary benefit would be that in the intervening four years, the electorate could judge the mettle of their esteemed public servant by what they choose to do to fill those four years.