READERS REACT: TAKING ISSUE WITH TIMES’ STANDS : Note: Many letters writers support our views; many do not. In the spirit of vigorous discussion of the issues, here is a selection of letters that disagrees with us. : Term Limits: PROPS. 131, 140

Wonders will never cease! The Times’ editorialists (“Terms of Endearment,” Oct. 28) admit to error! You confess that “our initial hope that the (Sacramento legislative-political) system might correct itself seems less and less warranted.”

Finally, you recognize that the people are “angered by the political gridlock, by politicians pocketing money or not doing their jobs, by a sense the system is adrift in a sea of self-interest.” And, at last, you confess that “some basic reform is warranted,” and “that Californians are ready for change.”

But the basic reform you recommend is a proposition that would postpone effective change into the 21st Century--for that’s when the first legislators’ terms would be limited under Prop. 131. And this change comes at the price of public financing of campaigns--a step that your own polls show is opposed by large majorities.

Only Prop. 140’s term limits will give California the new, more representative, and more responsive Legislature that we need for the 1990s.

PETE SCHABARUM

Prop. 140 author