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.




















image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.