Second, term limits reduce the period of time in which any one district can have a stranglehold on the positions that have the most power. The fact that incumbents tend to get reelected at very high rates even though large majorities of voters favor term limits is perfectly logical, he points out. A district that ousts its senior incumbent suffers a loss of relative clout in the legislature. To avoid that loss of power, it behooves individual districts to vote to retain their incumbents. If all the districts collectively could agree to oust their senior incumbents simultaneously, no district would suffer a loss of relative power, and each district would gain more accurate representation.
Term limits are effectively just such an agreement.
Policy Analysis no. Conrad's book covers the history of jury independence, demonstrating that the founders intended that jury nullification be a strong force in American law. Conrad chronicles jury nullification from before the Magna Carta through colonial-era libel cases, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the National Prohibition Act and the Vietnam War. He concludes with an examination of recent cases in which juries have refused to convict and an analysis of bills, which have been introduced in several states, that would allow juries to be informed, either by judge or attorney, of their latent power to nullify in the interests of justice. Reintegration has all but stopped, nationalist political parties continue to dominate the political arena, and 85 percent of Bosnians polled still say they will not vote for a candidate from another ethnic group.