Troiano is the executive director of Unite America, a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government. His new book, “ The Primary Solution,” is now available for pre-order.
It’s no secret that most Americans are frustrated with politics. We’re sick of our political leaders not working together to solve important issues — even when the majority of us agree on how to fix them. We’re tired of the vitriol and the negativity. We don’t want to see a rematch of the 2020 presidential election, yet that’s exactly what we’re likely to get.
But while poll after poll shows that Americans are feeling down about our democracy now, there’s a silver lining: We actually agree on a basic vision for what our it should look like.
According to a 2023 Citizen Data poll commissioned by Unite America, Americans overwhelmingly agree that two things should be true about every taxpayer-funded election: 1. All voters should be able to vote for any candidate, regardless of party; and 2. Candidates should have to win the support of a majority of voters to take office. In the poll, more than 90% agreed with the first statement, and more than 75% agreed with the second.
These principles are so reasonable that in the same poll, 70% of respondents thought that they were already true. The unfortunate reality, though, is that those two statements are only true in four states: Alaska, California, Louisiana, and Washington — all states that have eliminated partisan primaries, in one way or another.
In 2022, Unite America — the organization that I lead — published groundbreaking research on the “Primary Problem” with our politics: that a mere 8% of voters elected 83% of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2022. This shocking reality exists for a couple key reasons. First and foremost, 46 states have party primaries and the majority of them restrict which voters can participate. The worst offenders are the nine “closed” primary states, where independents are banned from casting ballots altogether. Second, because of partisan gerrymandering, most general elections aren’t competitive. So whoever wins the primary, will almost certainly take office, even though millions of voters are banned from participating.
The Primary Problem reared its ugly head earlier this month when Rhode Island and Utah held special primary elections for the U.S. House. Rhode Island is a “safe” Democratic seat in the general election, just as Utah is a “safe” seat for Republicans. In last Tuesday’s election, just 10% of eligible voters in Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District cast ballots, and only about 16% of eligible voters did so in Utah’s 2nd Congressional District.
Clearly, these two elections violate the two key principles that most Americans agree should be true.
As I mentioned earlier, there are four states that have tackled the Primary Problem. Louisiana eliminated primaries altogether in the 1970s, opting instead to have a general election with all candidates on the ballot. If nobody secures a majority, there’s a runoff election between the top-two finishers. Washington and California have top-two nonpartisan primaries, where all candidates appear on the primary ballot and the top two advance to the general election. Finally, Alaska voters adopted a top-four nonpartisan primary in 2020, where the top four vote-getters in the primary advance to the general. The general election is then decided by an instant runoff, ensuring the winner secures a majority.
While each of these four states pursued a slightly different solution to the Primary Problem, they all fulfill the two key principles of reform that most Americans agree on. Every eligible voter can cast a ballot for any candidate they wish, and winning candidates must earn support from a majority of the electorate. Replacing partisan primaries with nonpartisan primaries, and implementing an instant runoff in the general election, is one powerful way to do that.
According to research Unite America has released over the past year, nonpartisan primaries give voters better representation, improve governance, and decrease polarization. For example, before its top-two nonpartisan primary, California was the most polarized state in the nation — by far. But from 2013-2018, it’s one of only five states in the country that has become less polarized. Californians’ opinion of their state government has also improved.
Similarly, the Louisiana State Legislature routinely ranks among the least polarized in the country. To provide a real-world example, its runoff system helps explain how it was the first state in the Deep South to expand Medicaid. In 2015, Democrat John Bel Edwards won a close runoff election for governor. If Louisiana had party primaries, it's likely that his pro-gun, anti-abortion positions would have resulted in defeat. However, because he appealed to the majority of the electorate — not just primary voters — he won the runoff election. Gov. Edwards then joined with moderate Republicans to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, delivering better health outcomes to its residents compared to its neighbors.
Crucially, in all four states, more voters are casting ballots in elections that will actually determine the outcome.
Even though the mood might seem sour in the country right now, there are tangible reasons for optimism. Americans are ready to change our election system, we agree on some bedrock principles that get us there, and we support a powerful solution: nonpartisan primaries. 2022 polling found that nearly two-thirds support replacing partisan primaries with nonpartisan primaries. That includes 56% of Republicans, 68% of independents, 71% of Democrats.
Four states have already done this, and more could and should soon do the same.




















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.