More cities than ever before will use ranked-choice voting in their elections next Tuesday, furthering the alternative voting system's momentum across the country.
In Utah alone, 19 cities will use ranked ballots — most for the first time — after opting into an RCV pilot program earlier this year. This brings the nationwide total to 50 jurisdictions using RCV, with more than two dozen using it in elections this year. Outside of Utah, three of those cities are also newcomers to RCV.
Ranked-choice voting saw its biggest debut yet earlier this year in New York City's primaries for mayor and city council, which drew national attention.
In an RCV election, voters rank candidates in order of preference. In the event that no candidate receives majority support, an instant runoff will occur, as the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and that person's support is redistributed to voters' second choices. That process continues until one candidate crosses the 50 percent threshold.
Proponents of RCV say it reduces the cost of election administration and improves the voter experience by eliminating the need for costly runoff elections. Supporters also argue RCV bolsters the campaigns of women and people of color. While critics say the system is confusing and doesn't necessarily lead to better representation, polling in New York found the transition to be easy on voters, and a majority of the city council seats are likely to be won by women for the first time. The city council is expected to see other firsts emerge from the election, including its first-ever openly gay Black woman and first person of South Asian descent.
Utah by far has the most jurisdictions that have switched over to RCV. In addition to the state capital, Salt Lake City, 22 other cities opted into ranked elections this year. In four jurisdictions, though, there weren't at least three candidates on the ballot to rank, so those places will use traditional plurality voting.
"Good governance starts locally, which is why we're thrilled so many Utah cities have embraced ranked-choice voting," said Stan Lockhart, an advocate with Utah Ranked Choice Voting and former chairman of the Utah Republican Party. "This will be an opportunity for Utahns to test out ranked-choice voting ballots for themselves, and we're confident that Utahns will appreciate being offered back-up choices in the ballot box."
Minnesota is another state with several cities using RCV in its elections next week. Minneapolis, which adopted RCV in 2006, was one of the first jurisdictions in the country to make the switch to the alternative voting system. The state capital has a highly contested mayoral race with 17 candidates on the ballot, including incumbent Jacob Frey. Additionally, the cities of Bloomington and Minnetonka will be using ranked ballots for the first time.
Santa Fe, N.M., also has competitive RCV elections for mayor and city council on Nov. 2. The state capital first used ranked ballots in its 2018 elections.
RCV itself will be on the ballot in three cities next week. Voters in Ann Arbor, Mich., Broomfield, Colo., and Westbrook, Maine, will consider ballot measures to adopt RCV for future contests.
Last month, the Philadelphia City Council passed a resolution to study using RCV for municipal elections. The council is holding public hearings to discuss the switch.
And while the Virginia governor's race won't be utilizing ranked ballots, the state Republican Party used a form of ranked-choice votingin its nominating contest in May.
"Ranked choice voting is the fastest-growing, most bipartisan voting reform in the country. We're thrilled that more than 30 cities will use RCV next week and that the year's most high-profile elections in Virginia and New York City featured primaries with RCV," said Rob Richie, president of FairVote, an RCV advocacy organization. "Whether it's in progressive New York City or conservative Utah, voters overwhelmingly report positive experiences with RCV. Looking forward, I can't wait for Alaska and Maine to use RCV next year, and for advocacy drives to bring RCV to more cities, use RCV to handle crowded fields in presidential primaries and forever end gerrymandering by using RCV in tandem with multi-member districts."
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.