Democrat Mary Peltola was declared the winner of a special election in Alaska on Wednesday, becoming the first Native American to serve in the House of Representatives and the first Democrat to hold the seat in 50 years.
And if it hadn’t been for the state’s switch to open primaries and ranked-choice voting, the result could have been quite different.
Two years ago, the voters of Alaska approved a ballot measure that created a unique election system that combines a “top four” primary with RCV. The state starts with a nonpartisan, open primary in which all candidates compete on one ballot and the four who amass the most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party.
Then, in the general election, the candidates compete in a ranked-choice election. Voters can rank the candidates in order of preference, and if no one receives a majority of the votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated and their support is redistributed to voters’ next choice. The process continues until someone has a majority.
In the June 11 primary, to replace the late Rep. Don Young, Peltola finished fourth, behind Republicans Sarah Palin and Nick Begich and independent Al Gross. After the primary was complete, Gross dropped out of the race, leaving just three candidates for the general election.
In the Aug. 16 general election, Peltola led after the initial ballot count with 75,761 votes, but just 40 percent of the total. Palin was second with 58,945, about 5,200 more than Begich. So Begich was eliminated and his ballots were redistributed per his supporters’ rankings. While Palin did pick up most of the Begich ballots (27,042), it wasn’t enough to overcome Peltola’s new total of 91,206. More than 11,000 Begich voters did not list a second choice on their ballots.
While the system has critics who argue RCV is too complicated, polls consistently show voters understand and like it.
Alaskans for Better Elections, which advocated for the new election system, commissioned an exit poll in conjunction with the special election. It found that 85 percent of voters found the ranked ballot to be “simple” or “very simple.” And 95 percent said they had received instructions on how to fill out the ballot.
“These are fantastic numbers - they really reflect the willingness of Alaskans to learn about our new system and understand the benefits,” said Jason Grenn, executive director for Alaskans for Better Elections. “It’s also a testament to the hard work of the Division of Elections and many organizations across the state who are determined to make sure our elections inspire confidence and work well for each and every Alaskan voter. We will continue to work with our fellow Alaskans to ensure these reforms are seen for what they are – nonpartisan, simple, and meant to put voters first.”
Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Alaska, however, tweeted his opposition to RCV, calling it a “scam,” following Palin’s loss.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.