Ballot measures that would have opened primaries to all voters, and advanced the top vote-getters to the November ballot regardless of party, appear destined for defeat in both the biggest politically purple state and the physically biggest state.
While a solid majority of Floridians voted to allow every voter to participate in the often crucial nominating contests, the measure came up about 30,000 votes short of the three-fifths supermajority required. A similar proposal in Alaska was garnering only 43 support with four in five precincts reporting Wednesday.
Republican and Democratic leaders generally oppose open primaries, which would dilute their dominance over elections by taking away the guarantee one candidate from each would make the November ballot. Supporters maintain the overriding benefit for democracy is giving more of a voice to the huge blocks of voters (pluralities in some states) that don't align with the major parties — and to candidates who have broken free of the duopoly.
Both states are among the few that require voters to register with one of the two major parties if they want to vote in primaries. Most places allow some sort of crossover or independent participation. These are the details of the proposals:
Florida
While the proposal came up short, garnering 57 percent, proponents were heartened by the broad support it received from Republicans, Democrats and independents. More than 5.8 million people voted for the measure — more than who cast ballots for either President Trump, who carried the state, or former Vice President Joe Biden.
The measure's defeat means Florida's current primary system will stay intact, only allowing voters registered with a major party to participate. This system does not permit the state's 3.8 unaffiliated voters (30 percent of the electorate) to have a say in which candidates make it on the November ballot.
Open Primaries, the national group advocating for electoral reform, said although Florida was a heartbreaking loss, it remains committed to pushing for change next year and beyond. Their argument is that open primaries make the political system work better by rewarding candidates who appeal to the center instead of to the red or blue bases. Critics say that may be true, but often at the expense of Black and Latino candidates.
Alaska
The outcome of a sweeping democracy reform initiative had not yet been called since officials were still counting ballots in a fifth of the precincts. Results may take days to finalize, but the current margin of 23,000 votes will be tough to overcome.
The measure would open up congressional and state government primaries to all voters, regardless of party, starting in 2022. Many voters in Alaska aren't affiliated with either major party, so proponents of this expansion say it would ensure their voices are heard.
In addition to open primaries, the initiative would have also established ranked-choice voting for statewide races and bolstered transparency around political spending.
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.