Ernst is a volunteer and state leader at Veterans for All Voters (formerly Veterans for Political Innovation).
The problem with statistics is that they can be manipulated to support or refute any argument, and the Iowa caucus results are no exception. But despite some conflicting narratives that twist the results in different ways, Iowa and New Hampshire add two more brush strokes to an already clear painting – one that depicts a broken system of caucuses and primary elections.
Consider the following: On one hand, former President Donald Trump's victory in Iowa, where he won the support of 51 percent of caucus-goers, made him the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Few dispute this reality. On the other hand, the 56,000 votes that propelled him to victory represent only 1.8 percent of Iowa's population, with only 3.5 percent of Iowans participating at all.
Does the will of less than 2 percent of a population (or 7.2 percent of registered Republicans) represent "the will of the people"?
New Hampshire's turnout was much more robust, at 30 percent of registered voters – t but is (almost) a third really worthy of celebration? Democracies around the world would hardly be impressed.
Moreover, the consensus after the first two states is that the eventual victors are all but certain, on both sides of the aisle, with only 400,000 voters casting ballots at all. It's hard to defend such low participation and such a narrow process as the best way to reflect the broader public sentiment. Despite a sense of bewilderment, perhaps these figures give reasons for optimism.
First, we may be close to hitting rock bottom.
Similarly dismal turnout happens in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, so this is not a partisan phenomenon. But the primary process now underway across the nation is unlike any other in America's modern history and might be reaching rock-bottom, or at least a real inflection point, regarding electoral dysfunction.
Surprises do happen, but the primary process has us on track for a rematch between candidates for the first time since 1956. But unlike that year, when both candidates were highly liked, a rematch today would be between two of the most disliked candidates on record. Polls reveal upwards of two-thirds of Americans don't want a Trump-Biden rematch, but are seemingly unable to stop it. Iowa’s 1.8 percent is able to overcome the general will of the majority, which worked fine when candidates were widely liked – but not so well when the opposite is true.
This likely outcome arguably has the key ingredients to finally make it clear to Americans that the status quo is not in our nation's best interest: that electoral reform is finally necessary, and that simply looking forward to 2028 is insanity. Are things finally so bad that it might drive good? It's quite debatable, and largely depends on you engaging with reform movements in your states and communities.
Second, pro-democracy movements are thriving.
If you're interested in revitalizing America's democratic processes, you'll find there are so many organizations and coalitions working hard to bring change, it's almost hard to choose where to plug in. This is a good problem to have, and reason to be even yet more optimistic.
Reforms are being pushed for open primaries, campaign finance changes, an end to gerrymandering, the use of ranked-choice voting and more in all 54 states and territories and are all supported by organizations that are healthily resourced, with growing volunteerism and enthusiasm. This is the energy that will turn the tide, not within a matter of decades, but hopefully in the years ahead.
If you agree that action must be taken but don't know where to begin, then I implore you to find the group that’s right for you and take an active role. Seek out and join a volunteer group, even if only to be informed of what is occurring in your community and state. If you're a veteran, consider joining us at Veterans For All Voters. Knowing that even a few readers will choose to act, I conclude with even more optimism yet.
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.