Term limits should be worth experimenting with it. If it didn't prove out we could just back to the “die in office” limit.
We have a legislative format in Texas where the Legislature is only in-session part time. Nationally, this could cut way back on the never ending waterfall of new laws that don't really do much that is new or needed.
Repeal the 17th amendment?
For a long time I thought that. But I'm not so sure. I think it would just be the same pass-a-law-turn-the-real-lawmaking-over-to-executive-bureaucracy that we have now. Squared.
The problem, as I have heard it framed, is not the elected representatives; it is the horde of bureaucrats who provide the support staff for all the reps’ offices. They are not replaced when a rep is, they stay on (and on and on and...). Constantly getting fledgling reps into office would actually compound the problem as the staff would basically steamroll them by building legislation that the rep could never understand, yet would be pressed to put into law.
Now, requiring that the staff go with the rep could have merit. Yes, constant turnover of staff would mean less cunning and insider-knowledge to build trojan horse legislation, and a higher amount of honest folks in each office; it would also mean less efficiency and therefore would stem the tide of legislation, as it would take longer to produce readable bills. However, it would also make it much harder to build the occasional actually-needed bills in a way that makes sure they are properly written, and could result in overturning useful legislation on technicalities by private activists who know how to game the court system. Plus, neophyte lawmakers would be even more at the mercy of a potentially-packed Supreme Court or activist Executive Branch.