Griffiths is the editor of Independent Voter News, where a version of this story first appeared.
An election overhaul in the nation's eight largest city, designed to expand voters' viable choices and minimize polarization, has been killed by the San Diego City Council.
A broad coalition of democracy reform advocacy groups had made it a top priority to get a referendum revamping the municipal voting process on the November ballot, viewing the city as receptive to the plan. But the proposal was blocked Tuesday by the council on a 5-4 vote.
If adopted, San Diego would have replaced traditional partisan primaries for each office with a single contest open to all candidates, with the top four finishers advancing to a November election decided by ranked-choice voting.
"I want to tip my hat to the remarkable coalition that came together in support of change, and the heartfelt expressions of support of so many people seeking better elections in San Diego," said Rob Richie, who runs FairVote, which advocates for ranked elections. "That commitment will result in change in the future."
The advocates took some solace that their proposal secured bipartisan support. It was backed by two Democrats, a Republican and an independent. Four Democrats and a Republican formed the majority.
Local party leaders and partisan special interests teamed up to oppose the measure.
"From Maine to Alaska, nonpartisan reformers have had to battle the combined opposition of those in control of both major political parties," said Cara Brown McCormick, who has run two successful RCV campaigns in Maine and pressed the proposal in California. "The fact that some elected officials would refuse to give the people of San Diego a chance to vote on this measure tells you everything you need to know about why we need this reform so badly."
The proposal was brought forward by an unusually broad coalition spanning the ideological spectrum, including the League of Women Voters of San Diego, FairVote, RepresentUs, Take Back Our Republic, The Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans, Business for America, The People, Open Primaries, Community Advocates for a Just and Moral Governance, Indivisible and the Independent Voter Project.
The system, known as "Top4RCV," has emerged as a consensus favorite among nonpartisan election reformers across the country. A similar proposal will be on the ballot this fall in Alaska and is gathering preliminary support in states as diverse as Wisconsin and Arkansas.
Lori Thiel, president of the city's League of Women Voters chapter, described the vote as a missed opportunity to elect "representatives with the broadest base of support, ensuring they're responsible to the most constituents."
"The measure would have resulted in better representation and a more diverse field of candidates," lamented Geneviéve Jones-Wright of Community Advocates for Just and Moral Governance. "The measure would have helped us have a more inclusive democracy."
Advocates are confident that the candidates who win under the proposed system would have the broadest appeal and would campaign in nonpolarizing ways in order to turn off the fewest number of voters.
"We are very confident that this common-sense method of voting for candidates will gain more support as the word continues to spread around the community, " said Francis Johnson, chairman of Take Back Our Republic's board. "This is a temporary setback."
Visit IVN.us for more coverage from Independent Voter News.
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.