The race to replace former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is a doozy.
After the firebrand Georgia Republican resigned in January, nearly two dozen Republicans and Democrats filed to run for her seat, ranging from the usual local elected officials and business leaders to a farmer, a horse trainer and a travel consultant.
With no candidate likely to win an outright majority on Tuesday, the top two will face off in a runoff on April 7.
Every year, about a dozen special elections like this are held to fill House seats left vacant because a lawmaker accepted another government appointment, died or resigned, as Greene did in January.
These elections can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to run. Turnout is typically low — about half that of the previous regular election — and even lower when there is a runoff. In states without runoffs, the winner of a multicandidate race may not even win a majority of the votes cast, meaning they were chosen by a fraction of a fraction of the district’s voters.
The state’s Republicans aren’t keen on talking about it, because it refutes a major GOP talking point on election reform.
Georgia has found a solution to nearly all of these problems. But there’s a catch: Only members of the military and voters who live overseas can use it. And Republicans in the state are pushing to ban it for everyone else.
The solution is called ranked-choice voting, and it works pretty similar to the runoff Georgia’s regular voters will likely face in a month for Greene’s seat.
Instead of casting a second ballot, military and overseas voters simply rank the field of candidates in order of their preference. (For example: 1) the farmer, 2) the horse trainer, 3) the travel consultant.) If no candidate gets 50%, the lowest-ranked candidate is removed, and the second choices of their voters are reassigned. (So if the farmer came in last, your vote now goes to the horse trainer.) Some advocates refer to this as an “instant runoff,” since it works the same way as a runoff.
This works well for military voters, who must receive a ballot at least 45 days before a federal election under federal law so that they have enough time to receive it, fill it out and return it. In Texas, which doesn’t have a ranked-choice ballot for military voters, the alternative is to hold the runoff much later. This is why Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton won’t face off for the Republican Senate nomination until late May, which can create problems for the eventual nominee.
Ranked-choice voting isn’t just convenient for military voters, though. Research has also shown that it can boost turnout, reduce negative campaigning, increase the number of women and minority candidates, eliminate the “spoiler effect” of third-party candidates, elect more moderates and make governing more bipartisan. That’s why it’s used in elections from the New York City Democratic mayoral primary won by Zohran Mamdani to statewide races in Maine and Alaska to Australian national elections. It’s even used to determine the Academy Award for Best Picture and the Heisman Trophy.
To be fair, there are some drawbacks. It’s a little more expensive, takes longer to count and can be more work for voters — although polls show that most people who’ve used it found it “easy.” and want to keep it.
For many Republican lawmakers, though, ranked-choice voting is a nefarious plot. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has called it a “naked power grab” by liberals “hoping to split the conservative vote” and elect Democrats. Gov. Kay Ivey, R-Ala., called it “complicated and confusing” and argued it “makes winners out of losers.” The Republican National Committee adopted a resolution that said it amounted to “voter suppression” and put elections in the hands of “confusing technology” and “unelected bureaucrats.”
Opposition to ranked-choice voting has quickly become an article of faith in the GOP. Earlier this month, Indiana became the 19th state to ban the use of ranked-choice voting, even at the local level. In quieter moments away from the spotlight, some Republicans seem to understand its benefits. During the pandemic, the Indiana Republican Party used ranked-choice voting to streamline its virtual state convention in 2020. The Virginia GOP had no problem with it the following year when it chose Glenn Youngkin as its nominee for governor after five rounds of ballot counting. And Utah has long used it at state conventions. But the biggest tell is its use for military and overseas voters in six states, including Georgia as well as Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. Of those states, only Georgia and South Carolina haven’t banned the use of rank-choice voting in all other situations, and Republican lawmakers in both states are currently considering bans. There’s really no argument being made against ranked-choice voting that holds for members of the military but not for the public at large. Either it’s a partisan scheme to elect Democrats that is too confusing, suppresses voters and empowers nefarious bureaucrats — or it’s not. The only argument would be that it’s much more convenient for voters deployed to another country but not worth the hassle for voters back home, but that’s not what Republicans have argued. The biggest fear among Republicans seems to be that ranked-choice voting will help elect Democrats, but a recent survey of research by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois-Chicago found there’s no evidence that it helps or hurts either party. In fact, the only candidates that it seems to hurt are ideological extremists who disdain bipartisanship and struggle to reach out to their rival’s supporters. Lawmakers who continue to oppose it may be telling on themselves more than they realize. This is a preview of MS NOW’s Project 47 Newsletter. As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, get expert analysis on the administration’s latest actions and how others are pushing back sent straight to your inbox every Tuesday. Sign up now.
Ryan Teague Beckwith is a newsletter editor for MS NOW. He has previously worked for such outlets as Time magazine and Bloomberg News. He teaches journalism at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies and is the creator of Your First Byline. 
