Griffiths is the national editor of Independent Voter News, where a version of this story first appeared.
The most critical movement right now in the United States is to give voters an election system that is accountable, competitive and free of corruption. Hundreds of organizations across the country are working toward meeting this goal, and many of the movement’s leaders met in December to celebrate victories and discuss next steps.
The National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers hosted its annual summit in San Diego. It was the first time since before the Covid-19 pandemic that members and people interested in the coalition were able to meet in person, and there was plenty to discuss on the state of democracy and reform in the U.S.
“The purpose of the annual NANR summit is a chance for us to convene as election reformers,” said NANR Executive Director Andy Moore in an interview for IVN.
“There is tremendous value in getting people in the same room and having the nuanced conversations that help us understand the real value of these electoral reforms. We also get to hear from our colleagues on the ground about what’s working, what’s not, new strategies they’ve done.”
Moore described it as an “iron sharpens iron” approach. By learning from each other’s recent successes and losses, member organizations and other reform groups can adopt new strategies for future electoral reform campaigns.
Each of the three days featured special panels and breakout sessions to discuss topics such as the growing ranked-choice movement, approval voting, gerrymandering, using data to win elections, building winning legislative strategies and training the next generation of reform leaders.
Featured in all of these activities were leaders associated with member organizations, but also reform scholars like Larry Diamond and Charles Munger Jr., who delved deep into the science of elections and reform to set the tone for the rest of the summit.
“We built a flow to conversations,” said Moore.
“The first night we started off with three very smart people – Larry Diamond, Charles Munger Jr, and NPR’s Mara Liasson – to discuss what democracy is, what needs to be reformed, and over the next few days through group plenary sessions and smaller breakout sessions we were able to narrow those conversations to specific actions that are happening in Minnesota, Maine and elsewhere that helped guide the expectations of those who attended.”
He added that the feedback he has received from attendees has been overwhelmingly positive.
NANR is composed of dozens of member organizations, including pioneer groups in the reform space like RepresentUs, the nation’s largest anti-corruption group; FairVote, the preeminent advocate for ranked-choice voting and proportional representation; Independent Voter Project, author of California’s nonpartisan top-two primary; and Bridge Alliance, a coalition of 100-plus organizations committed to revitalizing democracy.
Members also include Unite America, Open Primaries, Institute for Political Innovation, Center for Election Science, National Vote at Home Institute, Forward Party, American Promise, and many more groups and individuals who want better elections for voters, which in turn will lead to a more accountable political process that is responsive to people’s needs.
“The collegiality leads to a lot of unexpected alliances and collective impact that we might not otherwise realize,” said Moore.
For example, he cited the emergence of final five voting, a name coined by reform stalwart Katherine Gehl and the Institute for Political Innovation. Final five voting combines a nonpartisan top-five primary in which all voters and candidates (regardless of party) participate on a single ballot with ranked-choice voting in the general election.
Nonpartisan primaries and ranked-choice voting were treated for years as if they existed in opposition to each other, but what groups like Independent Voter Project, FairVote and the Institute for Political Innovation found is that the reforms complement each other by offering fair elections open to all voters with more competition and choice.
“There is a lot of energy behind these reforms put together,” said Moore, “whether you are talking about a final four format, which was recently adopted and used in Alaska, or Nevada, which just passed the first of two ballot measures needed to approve a final five format.”
He noted that the nonpartisan reform movement is still relatively young, and things have just started to heat up for reforms like ranked choice voting and open primaries. RCV has the most momentum behind it, passing in states like Maine and Alaska, but also being adopted and used in 62 jurisdictions representing over 13 million Americans.
NANR brings together people who work toward different nonpartisan reforms to finds avenues for collaboration. Through increased cooperation between various groups across the country, the reform movement has seen one historic year of success after another over the last few years.
Moore explained that despite differences in approach and political philosophy, many Americans want change. The system isn’t working. And, if you bring together like-minded voters who agree that change is needed there is a good chance that if they support gerrymandering reform, they also want campaign finance reform, and they want to change our primary system, and think we need better voting methods.
“The structure of the nonpartisan reform movement is about building a stronger, more resilient, fairer, more representative democracy,” said Moore.
“We’re changing the aspects of how our democracy works, the underlying fabric of our democracy in ways that benefit voters so that it is not co-opted by the two major parties we have now or other parties that might emerge in the future. We want power to rest with voters and to ensure every vote counts and counts equally.”
He said the work doesn’t stop. The reform movement is not limited by the two-year election cycles. Reform efforts happen all the time throughout the country – every month of every year.
“As John Opdycke from Open Primaries, who is one of our board members, said, 'The goal of democracy and democracy reform is not always the product; it is the process. Democracy is a verb. It is a commitment. It is an idea.’ Our commitment to that idea happens every day.”
NANR is already in the planning stages for next year’s summit, including ways to better accomplish the goals of the summit.
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.