Griffiths is the national editor of Independent Voter News, where a version of this story first appeared.
Could ranked choice voting soon arrive ino the nation's most populous state? That is the goal of a new coalition which officially launched earlier this week.
The California RCV Coalition introduced itself to the public Tuesday, at a point when ranked-choice voting is having a moment. RCV is the fast-spreading voting reform, and coalition members hope California will build on both the popularity and success of reform efforts.
"There has been a lot of momentum in the state," said Tom Charron, who represented the group in a recent interview with IVN. "We've been seeing the results of ranked-choice voting, and the positive effects it has had on local elections, but what there hasn't been is the momentum at a statewide level."
Charron said the goal of the coalition is twofold: Over the long-run, achieve statewide RCV adoption, and, in the short term,offer support to local RCV campaigns to spread the use of the alternative voting method in the state.
Coalition members understand that getting RCV passed at the statewide level is going to be a long game. Garnering the support and resources to launch such an endeavor in the largest state will take time, accoding to Charron says.
Voters in the Golden State are not completely unfamiliar with RCV, so the coalition will have some foundation from which to work. RCV is already used in a handful of municipalities, including two major cities: San Francisco and Oakland. Albany, Eureka, and Palm Desert are slated to implement ranked-choice voting in 2022.
RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference on the ballot. When voting is done, the first choice results are tabulated. If no candidate gets over 50 percent of the vote, an instant round of runoff is held. The last-place candidate is eliminated and their voters' next choice is applied to the totals. This process repeats until a candidate has at a majority of the vote. Proponents argue that such a system ensures the winner represents a majority while eliminating the cost of a runoff election.
Advocates also say the new voting method can help temper the hyper-partisanship that has become a stain on the U.S. electoral and political processes. RCV changes the incentive system when candidates have to think about appealing to voters to earn second, third, or fourth choice positioning. They can't tear down the voter's first choice, and they have to find commonality with other candidates in order to get the attention of voters outside their base of support.
"It's clear if we keep on this path, we're in store for a less functional future," he said. "Our government representatives are just going to be at each other's throats."
Opponents of RCV argue that the voting method is too complicated for voters to understand. Yet, advocates point to a history of exit polls in RCV jurisdictions that show voters like it and want to continue using it.
For example, New York City held its first RCV primary elections in June, and not only did the city see the largest turnout since 1999, but 77 percent of respondents said they want to keep using the voting method.
Charron also commented on the nonpartisan nature of ranked-choice voting. It is not a reform that explicitly benefits a single party, and it has garnered cross-partisan support. While some might point to the traditionally "blue" jurisdictions in which RCV is being adopted, it has also gained significant ground in traditionally "red" jurisdictions like Utah and Alaska, where it was adopted for statewide elections.
"Across the board, in terms of how [RCV] is implemented, there is no favoritism for one party or the other," said Charron. "It is supported by groups and individuals and elected representatives who are forward-thinking, and are looking to get more accurate representation, and they come from the left and the right."
Members of the California RCV Coalition also span the political spectrum, and the group will continue to bring in new members as they get to work on ranked-choice voting initiatives. The group's launch was a big milestone, and Charron says he expects many new individual supporters and volunteers to come in that will work directly with the coalition.
"We welcome anyone who is interested in promoting RCV in California to become a supporter and a volunteer for our organization, and have a voice in what our strategy is going to be," he said.
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.