After President Franklin Roosevelt had been duly elected to four four-year Presidential terms, and who knows how many more that he could have won if he had lived, we find that consequently that the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was passed and ratified in 1951, sending a clear signal that the people of this nation did not feel comfortable with the Presidential office being held in the hand of just one person, though duly elected, as seemingly being something that would place too much power into the hands of just one American for too long of an extended time, and thereby felt it more prudent that the Presidential office should limit its terms as a reflection that the people weren’t interested in the same President serving in office, for a possible generation or even more, which if that were to happen, would make the Presidential office something more akin to a King or a Queen.
The above would seem to strongly suggest that the same sort of term limits, of no more than eight years total, should be in effect for those that have been elected to Governor or to Mayor, mainly because what is good for the goose is good for the gander. While it is true that there are a fair amount of States and cities that do limit how long a given Governor or Mayor can serve, it ought to be imposed that all Governors and Mayors should be subject to term limits, as opposed to being able to serve longer than eight years, for it does seem that the longer that a person serves in office, the more power they subsequently secure, and too much power in the hands of just one person has a very strong tendency not to be used all that wisely or prudently.
While it is true that States as well as cities have their own rules and regulations, there isn’t any good reason why they shouldn’t essentially follow in harmony with the 22nd Amendment. That said, it’s not for the Federal government to impose itself upon States and cities regarding term limits, but that Federal government should though at least indirectly encourage that States and cities should have term limits, because basically those that serve continuously are the same that may well decide that they prefer to serve themselves first and the people at some future point, which isn’t good for the people and isn’t good for democracy, as the people ought to have a true democratic choice, as contrasted to an outcome that is already predetermined because incumbents typically have a significant advantage over anyone else that would try to get duly elected.
In sum, there ought to be term limits, because too much power in the hands of just one individual, even a very competent and well-meaning individual, makes for a construct which lends itself to less accountability to the people, more corruptibility, and thus diminishes the power as well as the relevancy of the people.