Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Tennessee lawmakers ban ranked-choice voting

Ranked-choice voting in Tennessee

Lawmakers in Tennessee blocked the city of Memphis from conducting ranked-choice elections.

David Underwood/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Alternative voting systems have been making inroads across the country in recent years but suffered a setback Monday when the Tennessee General Assembly passed a ban on ranked-choice voting.

Assuming Gov. Bill Lee signs the bill into law, this will end a saga that began in 2008 when the people of Memphis voted to use RCV for city elections but had yet to use it — and mark a rare reversal of an electoral system change.


Ranked-choice voting, also known as an instant runoff, was used in more than 43 jurisdictions over the past few years, according to FairVote, which advocates for RCV and other changes to elections systems. New York City is the most populous jurisdiction to use RCV, along with the state of Maine, San Francisco, Minneapolis and many other cities. In 2020, Alaskans approved the use of RCV for federal and state general elections.

The Virginia Republican Party held a ranked-choice gubernatorial primary in 2021, leading to the nomination of now-Gov. Glenn Youngkin — a rare statewide win for a Republican in a state that has been trending Democratic.

The voters of Memphis never got an opportunity to use a system they approved. The local measure authorized the city to begin using RCV after election officials determined that voting equipment could handle it. That approval was granted in 2017 and the city planned to use RCV for the 2019 city council elections (following reaffirmation in a 2018 referendum), but a state election official determined ranked voting would violate the state law.

That led to a series of lawsuits on behalf of Memphis voters, but those filings will be moot if the bill is enacted.

"Ranked choice voting is the fastest-growing nonpartisan voting reform in the country for good reasons. As more than 50 cities have shown, ranked-choice voting is straightforward to implement and easy and popular with voters. That's why many Republicans introduce pro-RCV legislation and Republican parties regularly choose to use RCV for party contests,” said FairVote President and CEO Rob Richie. “It's disappointing that the Tennessee legislature is denying the will of Memphis voters — the voters who twice overwhelmingly voted to implement RCV. We hope they still get a chance in the future."

In an RCV election, voters rank their preferred candidate. If no one receives a majority of first-place votes, the candidate with the least support is eliminated and that person’s voters are redistributed to second-choice candidates. The process continues until someone has a majority of the votes.

In a standard election with more than two candidates, someone can win without earning a majority of votes.

Supporters of ranked-choice voting say that, in addition to guaranteeing the winner can claim majority support, RCV encourages more civil campaigning because candidates need to appeal to a wider base of support in order to earn secondary votes. It also can save money for cities and states by eliminating the need to manage expensive runoff elections.

Ranked-choice voting is not the only alternative method expanding in the United States. Approval voting, in which voters select as many candidates as they want with the person with the most support winning, has been implemented in St. Louis and Fargo, N.D.


Read More

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less