I'm sorry if I did not make my apportionment point clear.

My point was not that Michigan would be better served by having both branches of the legislature apportioned by land area, but that it would be beneficial to the state as a whole and beneficial to less populated areas specifically if one branch continued to be based on population and the other based on land area.

I think this is true regardless of Baker vs. Carr.  

Foundationally I am opposed to term limits other than those imposed at the ballot box.  In a perfect world a politician would serve 12 years and then step aside like a gentleman.