If you want to change the game, changing the rules and incentives of the game is a powerful approach.
Few people who watch the news - or those folks who avoid watching the news! - would say the political system in the United States is going according to plan. The founding fathers, if they were alive today, would be aghast at the unbridgeable chasm that seems to have developed in our political culture, making dialogue, compromise and progress nearly impossible on some of our most pressing issues.
In fact, our founding fathers warned against the rise of what they called factions in their time, and what we today call political parties.
All of this is happening at a time when the majority of Americans agree that common-sense laws for guns, healthcare and other issues are badly needed. If you look at the numbers, we’re closer together on more issues than you’d think. Research shows that our leaders are often much more polarized than we as a people are. Meanwhile, the US and local governments get less done, eroding our confidence in our democracy.
What can we do to change the game? Some people say “let’s get rid of the electoral college!” but such large scale changes are hard. My guest today has a simple solution that starts at the local level to change the political conversation.
Nick Troiano is a civic entrepreneur based in Denver, Colorado, and is the Executive Director of Unite America –– a non-partisan organization that seeks to foster a more functional and representative government.
Nick has been a leader in the political reform movement over the last decade, beginning as a founding staff member of Americans Elect in 2010. Nick ran for Congress in Pennsylvania’s 10th District in 2014 and drew national attention as both the youngest candidate that cycle and the most competitive independent U.S. House candidate in nearly two decades. He subsequently worked for Change.org to launch a mobile application to help voters cast informed ballots.
In 2016, Nick was named to the "Forbes 30 Under 30" for Law & Policy. He earned a Master’s degree in American Government from Georgetown University. He has spoken on the topics of political and fiscal reform to dozens of groups across the country, including along three national bus tours that collectively visited over 40 states. Nick is the author of The Primary Solution an *excellent* book that explains the challenge and a viable set of solutions to political division in America, and a producer on the 2024 film Majority Rules which lets you watch political change unfold in real-time.
I highly recommend watching Majority Rules - you can rent it on YouTube now! You will see partisan politicians learn to navigate a different political game as the rules are changed - and become more issues-focused instead of attacking personalities, and more inclusive than divisive. I also highly recommend supporting primary reform in your region - it’s a non-partisan issue that can help us become less partisan!
Listen to the end where Nick and I discuss how he leads his organization and builds coalitions while living his leadership and political values.
Links, Quotes, Notes, and Resources
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Primary-Solution/Nick-Troiano/9781668028254
https://majorityrulesfilm.com/
David Mayhew’s Book “Congress: The Electoral Connection”
More About Nick Troiano
Nick Troiano is a civic entrepreneur based in Denver, Colorado, and is the Executive Director of Unite America –– a non-partisan organization that seeks to foster a more functional and representative government.
Nick has been a leader in the political reform movement over the last decade, beginning as a founding staff member of Americans Elect in 2010. Nick ran for Congress in Pennsylvania’s 10th District in 2014 and drew national attention as both the youngest candidate that cycle and the most competitive independent U.S. House candidate in nearly two decades. He subsequently worked for Change.org to launch a mobile application to help voters cast informed ballots.
In 2016, Nick was named to the "Forbes 30 Under 30" for Law & Policy. He earned a Master’s degree in American Government from Georgetown University. He has spoken on the topics of political and fiscal reform to dozens of groups across the country, including along three national bus tours that collectively visited over 40 states. Nick is the author of The Primary Solution, and a producer on the 2024 film Majority Rules.
AI Generated Summary
Daniel Stillman and Nick Troiano discussed the importance of communication and collaboration in advocating for systemic changes in U.S. politics, particularly the abolition of partisan primaries. Troiano emphasized that open all-candidate primaries would enhance voter empowerment and improve representation in Congress, citing recent electoral reforms in states like Alaska as examples of positive change. He encouraged support for ballot initiatives aimed at promoting these reforms to strengthen democracy.
Nick Troiano advocates for abolishing party primaries to enhance political representation and cooperation, noting that only 7% of eligible voters influence 87% of congressional elections. He supports an open all-candidate primary system, citing successful reforms in Alaska that encourage broader coalitions among candidates. Both speakers highlight growing momentum for electoral reforms, with six states considering initiatives to abolish party primaries.
Finding Common Ground (3 min)
(2:04) - Nick Troiano emphasizes the need for shared values. He describes 'the spectrum' exercise for dialogue. Daniel Stillman reflects on political polarization. Many may share common ground despite differences.
Civic Engagement Journey (4 min)
(6:00) - Nick Troiano highlights the complexity of political opinions. He shares his civic engagement journey and motivations. Troiano advocates for systemic change in politics. Daniel Stillman expresses interest in improving discourse.
Impact of Primaries (4 min)
(11:30) - Nick Troiano critiques party primaries' influence on politics. He highlights disenfranchisement of independent voters. Primaries distort representation and discourage cooperation. Congress often fails to act on majority-supported issues.
Moderation and Open Primaries (4 min)
(14:30) - Daniel Stillman discusses moderation's role in politics. Nick Troiano advocates for open all-candidate primaries. This system empowers voters and enhances representation. Stillman reflects on potential changes in political dialogue.
Electoral Reforms Impact (4 min)
(19:20) - Nick Troiano highlights Alaska's electoral reforms. Top-four primaries and ranked choice voting diversify candidates. Candidates must appeal to a broader electorate. Daniel Stillman shares challenges in discussing reforms.
Challenges of Reform (2 min)
(23:55) - Nick Troiano addresses challenges in electoral system changes. He encourages debate on potential improvements. Historical reforms are highlighted for context. Daniel Stillman agrees on the need for change.
Principles Over Policies (3 min)
(26:17) - Nick Troiano advocates for principle-based conversations. A voting system for all candidates is essential. Daniel Stillman highlights complexities in electoral systems. Inclusivity in elections is crucial for representation.
Challenges to Democracy (3 min)
(29:31) - Nick Troiano highlights increasing political division. Grassroots movements aim for better representation. Troiano sees progress towards a more perfect union. Daniel Stillman notes innovation's importance in political processes.
Values of Leadership (5 min)
(32:54) - Nick Troiano discusses Unite America's guiding values. Collaboration among diverse political backgrounds is emphasized. Balancing idealism and pragmatism is a core challenge. Troiano encourages engagement in reshaping political processes.
Full AI Generated Transcript
Daniel Stillman 00:00
Nick. Nick Troiano, I appreciate you making the time for this conversation. Welcome to the conversation factory.
Nick Troiano 00:07
It's great to be with you.
Daniel Stillman 00:08
That's very kind of you and I. And so my first question is, what are your favorite kinds of conversations?
Nick Troiano 00:16
I love conversations that are unexpected in some way. You know, I am involved in politics. I talk a lot about politics, and it's always a good conversation when any of your pre existing notions about who someone is or what they believe or why they believe it is blown to pieces when you can really go deep with someone.
Daniel Stillman 00:36
Yeah. It's interesting in a way. There's like, not everyone brings a joy of the unexpected and the uncovering of a surprise thing you didn't know about someone. Once you get underneath the hood, that's a pretty important value, I think, rather than now. I guess my question, my follow up question to that is, Nick, is, how do you feel like you developed that interest and that value in let's go a little bit deeper and find something that we didn't know we were going to get out of this?
Nick Troiano 01:15
I think the motivation for me has been a value on trying to find common ground with someone.
Daniel Stillman 01:21
Yeah.
Nick Troiano 01:22
So even if it seems on the surface that you may disagree, the deeper you go, I think it reveals more of the shared ground that you both stand on, or at least more empathy for understanding the why behind the what someone may believe.
Daniel Stillman 01:39
Yeah.
Nick Troiano 01:40
An example. You know, at United America, we're a unique political organization insofar as that we're cross partisan, which means we have Democrats, Republicans, independents. We all care about politics a lot, working side by side on a shared goal. And at our team retreats, we do this exercise called the spectrum, where we line up based on our belief or answers to a question that we would pose on a binary. Do you believe the death penalty should be legal or illegal, for example? And you line up on the spectrum depending on how strongly you feel towards those polar ends. So one thing that's interesting is, oh, you know, John is standing over here, Jane is over there. And I didn't really think that they would be that way. Sort of caricature of what we're made to believe that a Democrat or Republican or libertarian or green might think. Then the more interesting part is when we go around and ask people, why are you standing in the place that you are? And then oftentimes it's about a child experience. They had a. An event that impacted their family, something they learned that changed their view along the way. And so that just gives an example the kinds of conversations. I really love that. I'm fortunate to get to have and the type of organization I fortunate to lead.
Daniel Stillman 03:01
I absolutely love that exercise. I've done similar exercises like this. I'm wondering, where did you learn to do that with your team?
Nick Troiano 03:09
Yeah. All credit goes to Lori Brewer Collins, who runs an organization called Cultivate the Cuirassier. Started in memory of a mentor of mine named Jake Brewer, with a mission of trying to bring people together from left and right who are next generation leaders and care about the country and want to find the connection between us. And so did this at a retreat that she facilitated with my team years ago. We've been doing it ever since.
Daniel Stillman 03:41
I love that. And I feel like in your book, which I listened to and enjoyed tremendously, there's this sense that if we were to line America up and or let them line themselves up and say, death penalty, gun control, I have Jerry Seinfeld in my what's the deal with gun control? What do you think? Pro or con? There would be fewer people at the polls for many of the issues that divide us, and there'd be a lot more people hovered around the middle. And this is a really important concept because we tend to have this idea that we're quite polarized. And you were talking about the fact that there's actually a lot of color and a lot of stories and a lot of ways that we can sort of find actionable solutions for things that we do care about, even though we are quite spread across a spectrum.
Nick Troiano 04:40
Indeed. And I think two other points that's important in considering that is, one, no matter where you are on that spectrum, that there's likely somewhere where you can agree with someone who's staying in a different spot as to what we should actually do about it. Yes, you have your personal position, and then it becomes sort of pragmatically, well, what should the answer be? And I think a lot of people are willing to be pragmatic and move in a direction that realizes we all don't get 100% of what we want. And secondly, when you go through this exercise, you realize you might be on one side of that spectrum on one issue and on a different side on a different issue. It's only in our red blue map of eyed version of politics on cable news that we're led to believe that people have very homogenous views that line up perfectly under one party's orthodoxy or ideology. And it turns out that a lot of people have a much more nuanced perspective on the issues of the day.
Daniel Stillman 05:41
Nuance that sounds boring, Nick. Sorry. That's generally people's, people's eyes can glass over. So some people care a lot about spectrums and exploring them, and other people want to make it crystal clear. But there's a lot of complexity in here. There's so many layers I want to pull on. And one of the questions I wanted to make sure I asked you, and I feel like you were talking about it when you're exploring that spectrum. Well, why are you over there, Bill? Why are you over there, Susan, what about you and your story, do you think made you passionate about systems change?
Nick Troiano 06:18
Yes. So my story is I got interested in civics and politics coming out of high school through a program the American Legion runs called Boys State. And that led me to go study government in Washington. And the issue that I became pretty interested in, engaged on is the one around our federal debt and deficit. I sat through a speaking of boring talk by the former comptroller general of the country that laid out in a series of charts the sort of trajectory that we're on in terms of our debt and deficit. It wasn't boring to me. That sprang me to action because it was just so clear about the kind of country and world my generation would inherit if we did nothing, meaning if left on autopilot, where we would go in the future. And by the way, that was some 14 years ago when we had about $10 trillion in debt. We're at 34 trillion today. We're spending more on interest payments to countries like China than we are investing our own national defense to speak of investments in the future. And so I became interested in systems change after I saw Congress's inability to work together to address that problem. There was a bipartisan fiscal commission that President Obama set up that produced a report. And both parties, including Obama and Paul Ryan, the Republican House budget chair at the time, they ran away from. They didn't want to find that common ground. And so nothing got done. And at first I thought, oh, gosh, this is a big problem because our politicians are failing us and it's a politician problem. And I ran for Congress as an independent because I thought my congressman was one of those politicians that wasn't doing a good job on this issue, only to realize several years in that it's actually not a politician problem, or not just a politician problem. It's actually an incentives problem. It's a system because our elections are structured in a way that actually rewards that kind of intransigence and ideological extremism. And it punishes people who are willing to work across the aisle and compromise. And so ever since, I've been focused on systems change, because my belief is until we fix the system, we're not going to be able to address any of the other major issues that we really care about.
Daniel Stillman 08:36
Yeah. And so specifically, I think we should talk about the, the core systems change that you're looking to. I think it's really interesting. I think people should listen to the book because you make a very long argument about all the things we could do to, quote, unquote, fix the system. And some of them are very hard and require literal acts of Congress changes to the Constitution, and others are things that a municipality or a state can do. And of all the different levers that we could pull to try and move the way that Congress is having conversations, their negotiations around things, is to remove partisan primaries so that the people who are going to Congress have to speak to all of their voters and they are more willing to compromise horse trade and have dialogue. They're less terrified that someone's going to run to the left or the right of them after they collaborated with the enemy.
Nick Troiano 09:39
Yeah, that's exactly right. I refer to party primaries, which a lot of Americans don't spend a lot of time thinking about as the primary problem in our politics. And I wrote the book, and I'm running this organization because I have a strong conviction that it's the single most important and viable change we can make. Not to say it's a panacea, that if we do it, everything gets fixed. But to say that if we could focus our time and energy and resources on one thing first before we get to the next, things that we would need to do. Abolishing party primaries is worthwhile to focus on. And it goes directly to your point about the impact that party primaries have on disenfranchising voters like independent voters. 15 million of us in the country can't even vote in these primaries in many states right now, it distorts representation. It disincentivizes people from working together, because if you cross the aisle and work on a solution, you might get primaried. You know, that's a phrase that used to be a noun, a way of nominating a candidate. That's now a verb. The primary system weaponized by the fringes of both parties to keep their members in line. And by the way, they're not there to serve a party. They're there to serve the country. And this is the whole challenge of the system today.
Daniel Stillman 10:59
One of the things I found really interesting about the book and also the documentary majority rules, which I also enjoyed immensely, is I don't think many of us think about or empathize with Congress and think you talk about incentives. The fear of being primaried is actually, I don't think I really understood the sort of the heightened levels of cortisol that the average member of Congress experiences where not only do they have to run and go through this whole process, but now they're thinking about, how do I make sure that I don't screw this up? How do I hold on to this job? I think it's a very natural human desire. And the way that they do that is by speaking to their base, the people who.
Nick Troiano 11:49
Yeah, by the way, we all change our behavior based on incentives to what we want the outcome of a particular situation to be. Yes, keep your job. You want to get promoted. Certainly there are incentives that, you know you will be rewarded if you do this or that or don't do this or that. And politicians are no different. They're rational creatures. I mean, it was in my political science 101 class that we learned about the David Mayhew's book in 1974 that famously described members of Congress as, quote, single minded seekers of reelection. Once you realize that that is the first, second, and third goal, before they start talking about, what are you here to do? Then you have to examine, well, what is it going to take for you to get reelected? Because that's going to heavily influence what they choose to do or not do or how they go about doing it. We are under an illusion right now, most people, that what it takes to get reelected is winning a general election against your other party's opponent. That's just not true. For 87% of our members of Congress, their only threat to getting reelected is not in the general election from the other party. It is actually in their primary to someone from their ideological flank who might primary them. Some of that has to do with gerrymandering, but most of it has to do with our own geographic sorting and the reason why that most districts are on lock for either team red or team blue. And that's why the primaries have such a disproportionate impact on our politics. 87% are decided in primaries. And then you realize in our organization does this research every year to look at, well, how many voters are actually deciding those elections? And this year, that answer is only about 7%. So you have 7% of eligible voters nationally casting ballots in 87% of our congressional districts that wind up electing those members of Congress. And so it is no wonder, then, why when you see issues that 60, 70, 80% of Americans can agree on and Congress doesn't act well, they don't represent 60, 70 or 80% of Americans. They represent the 7% of Americans that are on the far left or the far right who will punish them at work across the aisle. So that is at the crux of our democratic dysfunction right now.
Daniel Stillman 14:10
Yeah, it is. It's heartbreaking. I think there's this idea that if more moderate people wind up in office, that more moderate conversations can ensue.
Nick Troiano 14:27
Yeah. And I would say, or even just push back against the premise of moderation. I mean, some Americans are moderate. I consider myself to be a centrist independent, but not most are. I would say that we do have people across the political spectrum and that the goal of these reforms is not to force everyone into some kind of idea of moderation, but to force better representation. And so a solidly red district is going to elect a conservative member, but let that conservative member be someone who can truly represent the majority of voters in that district, not just the small faction that decides the primary. Same thing in a blue district. And if our congress was more representative, I think we would have better outcomes than we have today.
Daniel Stillman 15:13
Yeah. There's something about the competitiveness that's positive in an open primary. And what do you feel like is the benefit of having more people be in a primary that more people can vote on?
Nick Troiano 15:34
Yeah. So let's talk a little about the solution. So what I advocate in the book is to do away with the bifurcated system of party primaries that we have today and to replace that with an open all candidate primary. So every voter would be able to vote for any candidate, regardless of party, in every taxpayer funded election that includes the primary and that includes the general election, some states will advance two candidates from that all candidate primary to the general election. States like Alaska will advance four, and then the general election rank them so that there's a majority winner through an instant runoff, regardless of that particular nuance. The fact is that voters will get more power to truly vote for whom they want to represent them. Even for a voter that might want to vote Democrat 80% of the time or Republican 80% of the time, that still means 20% of the time. You'd rather vote for someone from the other party, be it for state legislature, for governor, for Senate, you should have that freedom to do so. So I think the core value proposition of open primaries for voters is just the amount of additional voice and choice you get through this system. The benefit for our political system is candidates and elected officials who have an incentive to actually represent a true majority of voters and therefore, to approach governing in a way that serves the majority, not the type of politicking we see today. That is really just about what do I have to do to get on tv to raise small contributions and inflame them?
Daniel Stillman 17:07
Yeah. So there's two things that I sort of got from this, which I think is fascinating. And one is that if I live in a red district and I'm blue, I just get to vote in my blue primary, pick the person who's gonna lose against whoever the red folks pick. Whereas if I live in a place with an open primary, I can pick the red representative that I hate the least earlier and actually have a chance to affect the outcome. I think the other thing that's interesting, and I really want everyone to watch the documentary because I watched Sarah Palin become nicer when she had, when she realized that this was not a burnt, you know, a burnt earth campaign against the other Republican, but she actually had to be more civil. She learned this in the first round. I mean, it's, so you could probably summarize the story a lot better than I can because you saw it unfold. But to me, when I watched this second round of elections where Sarah Palin and Nick, I forget the guy's name. Yeah. They just were like, okay, well, so I don't like everything she stands for. I think you should rank me first, but if you don't like me, you should rank her second. And I watched her do the same thing because they were like, well, obviously, we don't want the Democrat to win in this election. And it just, I saw the temperature of the dialogue drop down. And I think that's just fascinating anecdotal evidence that this, it's possible to change the tone of the political dialogue.
Nick Troiano 18:49
Indeed. And so for your listeners who, you know, want the wonky sort of political science behind this primary solution book goes into some of it. If you'd like the 90 minutes film to watch, it's going to be out on iTunes, Google play, Amazon Prime October 4. And this film chronicles the first time top four all candidate primaries were used in Alaska, along with instant runoff general elections, otherwise known as ranked choice voting. The combination of these two reforms, and it was used in 2022 for the first time, when, by happenstance, the longest serving member of Congress in the country passed away. And there was an open seat. And so 48 candidates ran for office. And this new system was used for the first time to actually winnow that field down to four. And then the four went to the general election. And it was extraordinary because it really did show how the system can impact the outcomes of the election, but not just who gets elected, about how they campaign. And so to your point, in this new system, the candidates adapted to the fact that actually you cannot get elected to this seat just by pandering to the base of your own party. You have to build a broad coalition. And that included it in the general election, saying, if you're not going to vote for me, at least rank me second, because if no one gets majority support, your second choice vote will count. And I think that's healthy for our democracy. I mean, right now most of our elections are binary contests between a Republican and Democrat. And in competitive seats, all they have to do to win is just to convince you how bad the other candidate is. They get elected, they're going to take away your guns, or if they get elected, they're going to raise your taxes, whatever the case might be. And when you have an election between three or four candidates or five candidates even, you can't just win by tearing down the other ones. You actually have to campaign on some positive vision of who you are and what you're going to do. And I think that will be a, you know, positive dynamic for the way that we do elections in our country.
Daniel Stillman 20:58
Yeah, it was, to me, that's like just extraordinary, emotionally palpable anecdotal evidence, because I know you talk a lot about this in the book, that it's hard to measure the direct effects because the effects can take a long time to sort of feed through. It takes multiple election cycles. I am curious, given that part of your philosophy is having unexpected conversations across political divides. You know, I was actually at a party on Friday, and somebody was talking about a specific presidential candidate that they were interested in who was actually not one of the, like, somebody who has very little chance of winning. And I was like, you know, I'm interviewing this guy on Tuesday, and I think if you're going to spend any money, time, energy, resources on politics, it might be on changing this one particular issue because it seems like it's systemic change. There was a woman at the party who was a little drunk, and she unleashed on me a barrage of invective. She said, how on God's earth is it a good idea to have more people voting in primaries? Like, I forget her exact phrase was like, there's so, you know, so few people are paying attention. Why is it good idea to have more candidates for fewer people? And I was really put back on my heels. I was like, hey, listen, I'm new to this topic. I'm not prepared to, like, go toe to toe with you on pulling this argument apart. But, you know, it's very easy for people to come out swinging on this. And so with a topic like this, how do you engage with your opponents on this dialogue around this change? I know you have multiple people in your coalition, but we're talking about, like, the people who are. This is a terrible, terrible idea, Nick, and you're a terrible person for thinking that this is how to make democracy better.
Nick Troiano 23:06
Yeah, if they're in the. You're a terrible person. Right. I probably won't invest too much time in the conversation, but plenty of nice people think this is a terrible idea. And I welcome the good faith debates we can have about this. First, recognizing that no system is perfect, there are trade offs involved. Any different type of election system one wants to design, and there's some transaction costs in switching a system and educating voters about how to use a new system. But what I would go back to and challenge anyone who wants to focus on the flaws of what we're proposing here is to first please defend the current status quo where 7% of Americans elect 87% of our leaders. I don't think many people I have not heard been able to do that in a way that I find compelling or persuasive. So the question is less about, is what you're proposing perfect? But is it better than what we've got today? The last coming up on 250 years of our history here as the oldest constitutional democracy in the world, is a history of, can we make it a little bit better in our own generation, for our own time? We've done that 100 years ago when we invented primaries to begin with, when we started to directly elect our senators, when women gained the right to vote. That's the proud tradition of the country that I think we're continuing today as we ask ourselves, can we do better?
Daniel Stillman 24:39
You know, what's so interesting about that response, you know, to the meta, you know, conversational dynamics perspective? It's very easy to respond to fire with fire and to respond to an attack with defense. What you responded to in that instance, or what, what your intention would be to respond to in that instance is to say, I don't actually think it's perfect, and I think the current situation is also far from perfect. Do you agree if we go down one level, if we take a couple of layers across, do you agree that the current system isn't ideal. And that's really anchoring on at least the overall idea that something might need to change.
Nick Troiano 25:28
Yeah. It's in large part why we lead with our principles, not our policies. And our principles are that every american should be able to vote for any candidate in every election, and that anyone who wins should do so with majority support. And we get over 80% support from Democrats, Republicans, and independents on those principles. And I think it's a good way to begin these conversations before we start debating vote tabulation methods.
Daniel Stillman 25:53
Yeah, well, yeah, because the rabbit hole goes pretty deep on that. And I think, as you point out, and I'm glad you got to that towards the end of the book about the. I think it's like Arrow was the political scientist who said that there's literally, it's mathematically impossible to have a totally perfect system of choosing people. And so, like, let's not even talk about a perfect system. Let's talk about what kind of a system we want to have. There was another principle, I think, that you left out on that list of. Not just that, the idea that taxpayers funding elections, that most people, certainly, if there's all these people who are independents, they literally, in many states, can't vote in elections, primary elections, to choose the candidates that they're going to vote on later. They're paying for that money with their tax dollars, but they can't be in, they can't be part of that process. Which does seem to me anti. Anti good.
Nick Troiano 26:49
Anti good, yes, because I think a common objection people will raise is that, hey, my club, my party should be able to choose its leader without interference from people who aren't part of my club. And I get that. And I would actually just underscore it. You're correct. Your party is a private organization, and it should run itself however it wants. It can recruit, endorse, and support candidates throughout whatever means it desires, and people can choose to affiliate it with. With it or not. When we're talking about a taxpayer funded and government run election system, that system should be open to everyone and should be focused on serving voters, not partisan interests. And that's quite consistent with the views of our founders, who not only didn't anticipate the rise of political parties, they outright feared it. And here we are. We have political parties. In fact, one can make a very good argument about why they're actually a good thing for democracy in terms of how voters can organize themselves and their interests. But we should not conflate them with the democracy that we have that belongs to all of us, and all of us includes the 51% of Americans right now that chooses not to affiliate with either political party.
Daniel Stillman 28:13
Yeah. Yeah. Now, you mentioned, I just read an article from NPR that came out where you were talking about how there's a lot of items on the ballot, this coming election around these issues, and that it feels like we're at an inflection point. And first of all, like, what does that feel like? I know you've been working on this for a long time, and two, like, what do you feel like is on the other side of this inflection point for you and your work?
Nick Troiano 28:42
It feels exciting. I have been working on this a long time. The duration of that time has been a period in which our politics has gotten worse. When I started on this work, our biggest fear was gridlock. Right. That our leaders couldn't agree and the problems would get worse and not get solved today. And in the past few years, the concern has been, can the republic survive? Can the republic survive when our politics have become so divided that our norms and institutions of democracy itself have become under threat? And what I mean by that is fights over election rules, election outcomes, stacking the court, et cetera, et cetera, of a tit for tat that eventually leads to the downfall of democracy. I mean, those are the stakes. And so how it makes me feel to see this movement, having gained traction over the last ten years, is excited to know, to confirm what I know to be true in my gut, which is that there's nothing so wrong with our democracy that the same tools of our democracy gives us the opportunity to fix. And so to see. In a state like Idaho, 2000, volunteers gather 100,000 signatures to put an initiative on their ballot to adopt a new election system that can truly represent a majority is democracy in action. And whether that initiative or others win or lose, we are making progress toward a more perfect union, really. And that's a story that I think is playing out at the same time as some of the negative headlines that we're seeing and some of the negative news about how some elements of our democracy is actually getting worse. So to make it quite tangible, Alaska was the first state to adopt a top for all candidate primary. In 2020. It became the fifth state to do that for, in some way, shape or form. Overall, this year, there are six states with initiatives on the ballot to abolish party primaries, red, blue, and purple states alike. And if just two or three of those were to ultimately win over the forces of opposition from both political parties, I think it'll be a very big deal for the movement, for our country, for our democracy, because it will not only liberate the us senators and representatives from those states that can improve the function of our congress, it will further demonstrate the power that we, the people have to make these changes and I think, accelerate the progress of change that we'll see over the coming years.
Daniel Stillman 31:16
Yeah, I mean, from your mouth to God's ears, as my people say. I think it's a really interesting moment to see if we can cook up something better rather than what we've been using for quite some time. One point I think you make in the book, which is extremely interesting to me, is that a lot of people assume that it's always been this way and it hasn't. We've hacked our way here and we can hack our way to someplace else. Speaking of doing things as we've always done them, we did talk earlier about how do we apply, or how do you think about the conversations that you have internally in unite America and also with your stakeholders and your collaborators? How do you apply these same ways of working and thinking on a microscopic scale?
Nick Troiano 32:05
One of my favorite values at United America is that we model the leadership we seek. So we're a team of Democrats, Republicans, and independents who want to see our leaders hold themselves accountable, to let the best idea win, to work civilly across difference, to be solutions oriented, to operate with integrity. Guess what? All of us can do all those things every day in our own lives, in our personal lives, in our professional lives. And so we internalize what we'd like to see in our politics to the way that we operate as an organization as well.
Daniel Stillman 32:46
What part of that is the most challenging for you? Sometimes I'm curious, like, where do you find your edge? Is it leading in those ways?
Nick Troiano 32:55
I would say where there's healthy tension is another value of ours, which is we're pragmatic idealists. We're trying to do something that doesn't yet exist, that a lot of people don't think is possible, and imagine what that world can be. And so that's our idealism. And our pragmatism is we're up against multibillion dollar entities known as the democratic and republican parties that will fight us tooth and nail before they give up any of their power to give voters that power. And so we have to be ruthlessly pragmatic in terms of where we engage, how we engage, the tactics we employ. Because this isn't about writing a persuasive op ed. This is about, can we help elect or defeat an opponent in a legislature, can we pass a ballot initiative? Can we defend it from repeal, etcetera? And so I would say that the tension that exists is keeping our eye on the North Star while also knowing that we need to be quite pragmatic in our approach to win in this field of political battle in the same way with the same determination as our opponents will.
Daniel Stillman 34:13
Yeah. What's so beautiful about that, from my perspective, Nick, is that all leadership eventually boils down to resolving fundamental polar tensions. And I look at the absolutist idealism and total pragmatism as two poles, that it's really about dancing between them, maintaining the idealism, while admitting that what we can accomplish on a day to day, week to week, month to month basis might fall short of those ideals but still keep ourselves moving forward.
Nick Troiano 34:47
Yeah. This is another credit to Lori, who I mentioned earlier in the interview. We do these polarity exercises, which isn't about choosing this or that, but it's choosing how do you capture the upsides of both mitigating downsides and how do you know when you're going too far in one direction or another? And so we talk a lot about that as an organization because if we're overly idealistic, chances are we're not going to get much done. If we're overly pragmatic, chances are we're actually not going to pursue the ideal vision for what we know and believe can be true in our country.
Daniel Stillman 35:24
Yeah, that's beautiful. Is there anything I haven't asked you that I should ask you before we end our time together?
Nick Troiano 35:34
I would say for those listening, if you're not in one of the six states with ballot initiatives, that means you're in one of the 44 that can help those states win in November. And so I would encourage you to head to majorityrealsfilm.com to see where you can watch the film, where you can share it or screen it or host a house party. It's a great tool to educate others. And we're working very closely with our partner, represent us, which is represent us as a place to go to take action. So you can phone bank, text bank, contact voters in these states and tell them why you care about this and to take advantage of the opportunity they have to reimagine the way that we.
Daniel Stillman 36:14
Elect our leaders, getting behind nonpartisan reform that can change the game for generations. It's definitely worthwhile. That's amazing, Nick. Thank you so much for your time, your energy on this important topic. I'll call scene shortly and just make sure everything felt cool, but I'm really, really grateful. Your time. This is super important stuff.
Nick Troiano 36:39
It's clear you've invested a lot of time in reading and watching, and I really just appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts.