Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is a simple upgrade to the Georgia runoff election system that would save taxpayers money, shorten our election timelines, and empower voters. City and local governments of Georgia ought to be permitted to use RCV to benefit voters and improve their elections that are often plagued by cumbersome runoffs.

The purpose of this document is to inform local governments of Georgia about the current state of affairs around RCV in the state and how a resolution to support the implementation of RCV could advance us towards a better future for voters.

This document is for general informational purposes only. While some of the information contained in this publication is about legal issues, it is not and should not be treated as legal advice. You should consult with your legal counsel before taking action based on the information contained in this publication.

What is Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)?

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is a simple upgrade to Georgia’s current two-round runoff system. In the existing system, if no candidate secures a majority of votes in the initial election, all but the top two candidates are eliminated, and a second runoff election is held between the top two candidates.

RCV simplifies this by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) during a single election. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to the voters’ next choices. This process repeats until a candidate achieves a majority of votes. RCV simulates a runoff election instantly (hence its other name: “instant runoff voting”). By shortening the election down to one date, RCV saves the time and expense of holding a separate runoff while maintaining Georgia’s majority rule.

How do cities benefit from RCV?

Implementing RCV offers numerous advantages for municipalities, both in terms of cost savings and enhancing democratic processes. One of the most significant and immediate benefits is the cost savings. Running multiple elections because of runoffs doubles election administration costs. By eliminating the need for separate runoff elections, local governments can allocate these funds to other critical areas.

RCV also empowers voters by providing greater choice and voice in elections. This voting method allows citizens to rank candidates in order of preference, ensuring that their votes contribute to the final outcome even if their top choice is not the most popular. This leads to more representative election results and can increase voter satisfaction and engagement. This is particularly beneficial in often crowded city elections with three or more candidates.

Additionally, research shows that RCV can work to reduce negative campaigning. The structure of RCV, allowing voters to rank preferences instead of selecting just one candidate and electing the candidate with majority support, incentivizes candidates to appeal to a broad base of voters. In Donovan et al. 2016, the researchers state,

“Our surveys of voters indicate that people in cities using preferential voting [i.e. RCV] were significantly more satisfied with the conduct of local campaigns than people in similar cities with plurality elections. People in cities with preferential voting [i.e. RCV] were also less likely to view campaigns as negative, and less likely to respond that candidates were frequently criticizing each other.”

Donovan, T., Tolbert, C., & Gracey, K. (2016). Campaign civility under preferential and plurality voting. Electoral Studies, 42, 157-163.

Lastly, RCV is not entirely new to Georgia; it is already in use for overseas and military voters in some elections. Expanding this system to local elections builds on existing infrastructure and compatibility with majoritarian elections, making the transition smoother and more manageable. The upgrade to RCV is straightforward, leveraging the modern, RCV-capable voting equipment already in place across Georgia. This ensures that cities can adopt RCV with minimal disruption and maximum efficiency.

By embracing RCV, city governments can enhance the electoral process, save significant costs, and provide a more rewarding and representative voting experience for their constituents.

What does an RCV resolution do?

An RCV resolution serves as a formal statement expressing support for the adoption of RCV in municipal elections. While non-binding, it can notify the Georgia General Assembly of a desire to use ranked choice voting and also play a crucial role in raising awareness about the benefits of RCV. By passing a resolution, local governments encourage the Georgia General Assembly to consider expanding the use of RCV in Georgia. Additionally, these resolutions can help educate the public and other stakeholders about the mechanics and advantages of RCV, fostering a more informed and engaged electorate.

In essence, an RCV resolution acts as a catalyst for broader discussions and actions towards electoral improvements. It provides a framework for city officials to articulate their support for RCV, outlines the potential positive impacts on local elections, and sets the stage for future legislative or policy initiatives. Through these resolutions, city governments can demonstrate leadership in advocating for fairer and more effective elections.

Is RCV legal in Georgia?

The current Election Code of the state of Georgia does not allow for use of RCV in any election. Georgia’s election law currently requires that municipal governments conduct elections with one of two systems: plurality or two-round majority. Cities cannot opt in to using RCV. The Georgia State Legislature would need to pass a law enabling cities to use RCV.

Can Georgia’s voting technology support RCV?

Georgia is well-prepared to implement RCV across the state. As of the latest 2023 analysis by the RCV Resource Center,

“100% of Georgia counties have modern, RCV-capable voting equipment, which
consists of 100% of registered voters in the state.”

Georgia’s voting technology has the capability to provide and tabulate ranked choice ballots. With Georgia’s modern voting technology infrastructure, the transition to RCV can be smoothly executed without the need for significant additional investments in technology.

See the full RCV Resource Center report here:
www.rcvresources.org/georgia-state-assessment

What would an RCV enablement bill look like?

An RCV enablement bill would ideally provide for

A definition of RCV,
A method for local governments to opt into using RCV,
Guidelines for RCV election administration

BBGA prefers legislation such as the recent HB 200: https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/63905

How would our city opt into using RCV?

The exact method for municipal adoption of RCV may differ depending on final legislation. Though municipalities are not currently allowed to do this, the ideal method would be for them to opt in by a “home rule” charter amendment ordinance. This would allow for self control without the need for an enabling bill by the General Assembly.

Read more about “home rule” charter amendments at the Georgia Municipal Association’s website: https://www.gacities.com/Resources/GMA-Handbooks-Publications/City-Clerk-Handbook/City-Charters.aspx

An example of how the home rule may be granted comes from the recent RCV enablement bill, HB 200, which states:

“Such adoption [of ranked choice voting] shall be made by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing authority.”

https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/63905

How would our city implement RCV?

Implementing RCV follows a multi-step process. First, the city council or governing body must pass an ordinance authorizing the use of RCV in their elections. This often involves public hearings and discussions to ensure community support and understanding. Once the ordinance is passed, the city collaborates with election administration officials to update voting systems and procedures. Georgia’s current voting systems are fully capable of running elections with RCV ballots. A voter education campaign is highly recommended to explain how RCV works. Better Ballot Georgia, in our mission to educate, is eager to collaborate on and support voter education campaigns. Finally, the city conducts outreach to inform voters about the upcoming changes, often using informational materials, workshops, and community meetings to ensure a smooth transition.

Special considerations for consolidated city-county governments.

Several cities in Georgia operate consolidated governments with their county, notable examples being Athens-Clark, Augusta-Richmond, Cusseta-Chattahoochee, Columbus-Muscogee, and Macon-Bibb. Future RCV legislation would ideally allow such jurisdictions to use RCV along with regular, stand-alone municipalities, but this cannot be guaranteed. When crafting an RCV resolution, consolidated city-county governments should include language relevant for their unique situation.

What do other cities’ resolutions say?

While the detailed content of the resolutions can vary, they generally express the desire and then make the case for RCV. The issues addressed typically include the inefficiency of two-round runoffs, the negative campaigning associated with plurality voting, and the ability to reliably get a majority with RCV.

Example text of Johns Creek and Doraville city resolutions are provided in Appendix A.

For a full list of Georgia local government RCV resolutions, visit our website:
https://www.betterballotgeorgia.org/citycounty_resolutions_list

What does the Georgia Municipal Association think of RCV?

While the GMA does not have any official stance on RCV in general, they have been supportive of local option bills, such as HB 200, that would allow cities to use RCV. They have published their support for HB 200 on their website indicating that HB 200 would have, in their assessment, a positive impact for Georgia cities.

https://www.gacities.com/Legislative-Session/Bill/HB200

Has RCV been used before?

RCV has been in use extensively across the United States on both a statewide and municipal level. It has been used statewide in Maine and Alaska. It is used in numerous cities across the country including Salt Lake City, San Francisco, and New York City. States like Utah and Virginia have both passed legislation for city pilot programs that allow cities to opt into using RCV. Such an approach would be a good fit for Georgia. You can read more about RCV adoption across the US at FairVote’s website:

https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting-information/#where-is-ranked-choice-voting-used

RCV: Myths vs. Facts

Elections are a sacred part of American society and the subject of reforming them must be taken very seriously. RCV is a proven enhancement to our electoral system that is supported not only on theoretical grounds but also practical grounds. Arguments may be brought up against RCV, but they don’t hold water.

All Voters Get One Vote

On an RCV ballot, voters rank their choices. Still, all voters get one vote. A voter’s ballot will only ever count towards one candidate, his/her highest-ranked remaining candidate. This is exactly the same as in our current runoff elections where a voter may make one choice in the general election and a different choice in the runoff.

Ballot Exhaustion

An “exhausted ballot” occurs when all the candidates ranked by a voter have been eliminated during the counting process, and there are no remaining preferences on the ballot. This can happen if the voter only ranks candidates who do not receive enough support to stay in the race. As a result, the ballot is no longer active in determining the outcome of the election.

Voters are not forced to rank all options under RCV, in much the same way they are not forced to come back for runoff election. In Georgia, we currently have a much more dire form of exhaustion: voter exhaustion.

Our runoff elections result in steep drop offs in voter participation between general and runoff elections. Many voters do not return to polls for runoffs. For example, in the 2021 Atlanta mayoral election, a total of 17,252 voters (making up 18% of the electorate) did not return for the runoff election. This is typical for Georgia runoff elections and represents grave disenfranchisement. It is not fair for the government to require voters to return to the polls for their vote to count. With RCV, a vote would always stay valid

Research by R-Street (https://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Final-Short-106.pdf) shows that ballot exhaustion occurs at a rate less than 1% in Maine elections where they have used RCV since 2018. The rate of ballot exhaustion is drastically smaller than the rate of voter dropoff we see in Georgia. In Georgia, vast amounts of voters are disenfranchised by the burden of returning to vote in a runoff. This dropoff could be drastically improved by using RCV for municipal elections.

Voter Education and Understanding

Voters like and understand RCV. Massive amounts of research and polling has been done on RCV elections across the country. FairVote has collected this research together to show voter satisfaction with RCV.

https://fairvote.org/resources/data-on-rcv/#voter-support-and-understanding

A summary of those findings can be seen below.

Jurisdiction	Year	Key Stats
Alaska	2022	85% said RCV is simple. 62% supported Alaska’s new primary system.
Maine	2018	61% supported keeping or expanding RCV.
Arlington, VA	2024	88% of voters said RCV was easy. 67% supported using RCV in future elections.
Boulding, CO	2023	86% said it was easy. 77% were satisfied with their voting experience.
Virginia Republicans	2022	56% who voted in primaries using RCV preferred it to single-choice elections.
20 Utah Cities	2021	86% were satisfied with their voting experience. 81% found RCV easy.
Minneapolis, MN	2021	88% of voters found RCV simple. 76% wanted to continue using RCV.
New York City	2021	95% found their ballot simple to complete. 77% supported using RCV in future local elections.
Payson and Vineyard, UT	2019	82% wanted to use RCV again.

Source: https://fairvote.app.box.com/s/mdzeyi5d9bpsym2ztmhf8uu09p7l89be

Further, voting error is low in RCV elections. This has been shown in various studies from 2016, 2020, and 2021.

Still, Any implementation of RCV should be accompanied by a robust voter education campaign.

RCV Elections Produce Results Fast

Georgia has repeatedly shown great capability in counting ballots and delivering election results quickly. Using RCV does not compromise that. Many cities across Utah, California, and Minnesota report RCV election results the night of or day after the election. Georgia can continue to deliver fast election results with ranked choice ballots. Our modern polling technology makes that possible.

RCV Elections Can Be Administered Smoothly and Successfully

Using RCV in Georgia would not be breaking new ground. RCV elections have been administered in cities across the country for decades. Lessons have been learned and best practices have been developed which Georgia can adopt. Our modern voting equipment makes the setup up and administration of RCV almost as easy as the flip of a switch.

Appendix A: Example Resolution Language

City of Doraville RCV Resolution

City of Johns Creek

Informing Policy: Crafting Resolutions in Support of Ranked Choice Voting for Municipal Governments

Introduction

What is Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)?

How do cities benefit from RCV?

What does an RCV resolution do?

Is RCV legal in Georgia?

Can Georgia’s voting technology support RCV?

What would an RCV enablement bill look like?

How would our city opt into using RCV?

How would our city implement RCV?

Special considerations for consolidated city-county governments.

What do other cities’ resolutions say?

What does the Georgia Municipal Association think of RCV?

Has RCV been used before?