Philippa Kaur

Runoff elections tend to be races of attrition. Turnout will most likely be lower, as voters are less accustomed to turning out for off-cycle elections. Candidates, then, must try to minimize attrition among their supporters, and the one with the least erosion is most likely to win.

Such was the case in Georgia on Dec. 6, 2022. Fewer people voted for either candidate in the runoff: Sen. Raphael Warnock, the Democratic incumbent, saw the number of people who turned out to vote for him drop by about 131,000 from the November vote; Republican Herschel Walker lost closer to 200,000 voters. This would explain how Warnock was able to grow his lead in the runoff.

On turnouts and turnoffs

Overall, voter turnout in the Georgia Senate runoff election was nearly 90% of the turnout in the November general election. That’s not a huge drop-off and reflects voter interest in the outcome of a race that has been the subject of intense mobilization campaigns by both candidates in the past month.

When looking at the 10 counties with the highest proportional attrition from November to December – that is, counties where runoff turnout was only 83% to 88.1% of general election turnout – one thing stands out: They were all in metro and exurban Atlanta or north Georgia, the counties close to Tennessee and the South Carolina state line near I-85.

While some of these counties are Republican strongholds, many of them are increasingly diverse racially. Some of these counties are also rich with the college-educated white voters whom both parties covet.

Warnock earned a higher percentage of the vote in the runoff compared with November in each of these “high-attrition” counties. Walker, however, lost vote share in three of these counties.

Furthermore, in the seven high-attrition counties where both Warnock and Walker got a larger percentage of the vote than they did in November, Warnock garnered more vote share in all but the three most sparsely populated counties.

This suggests that Warnock may have won the majority of the eliminated Libertarian candidate’s votes that were up for grabs in the runoff.

There was also a nontrivial number of new runoff voters – people who voted in the runoff but not in November. We know that almost 78,000 of these new voters participated in early voting, and that this group was disproportionately voters of color – people who tend to vote Democratic.

Warnock overperformed in the most densely populated counties, too. My analysis shows that in the 10 counties that cast the most ballots in this election cycle, Warnock improved his vote share in the runoff by a range of 1 to 3.2 percentage points in each county. Walker, meanwhile, lost vote share in six of the 10 counties.

There was only one county of the top 10 – Hall County – where Walker’s increase in vote share outpaced Warnock’s increase. With the exception of Chatham County, home of Savannah, all of the vote-rich counties where Warnock gained and Walker tended to lose vote share are in metro or exurban Atlanta.

Deficiencies as a candidate

This raises the necessary but uncomfortable conversation about candidate quality. Pundits and observers had long been concerned that Walker’s deficiencies as a candidate would be a particular turnoff to suburban Republican voters, and that they might register their opposition by not voting at all. That more attrition took place in and around Atlanta suggests that there were grounds for that concern.

Walker was particularly compromised as a candidate. By standard political science measures of candidate quality – such as whether a candidate has relevant prior experience – Walker was a low-quality candidate.

His unintelligible policy pronouncements and bizarre non sequiturs about bulls and werewolves only reinforced the impression among some voters that he was not capable of handling the job of U.S. senator.

And when you compound those problems with the explosive allegations about domestic violence and pressuring girlfriends to get abortions, it looks like a small but significant sliver of likely Republican voters decided to prioritize their concerns about candidate quality over naked partisanship.

Meanwhile, Warnock has nearly two years of Senate experience and was able to draw on a modicum of incumbency advantage to help him in the contest. This was certainly reflected in his prodigious fundraising over the course of this cycle.

Yet Warnock was one of the most vulnerable Senate Democrats in this midterm election cycle for a reason. Georgia Democrats may be increasing in number and voting power, but other recent elections suggest there are still more Republican than Democratic voters in the state. Other GOP nominees in the state, such as Gov. Brian Kemp, were able to coast on that numerical advantage and Joe Biden’s net negative favorability to win decisive victories in November – without runoffs.

That Walker struggled was a signal of his weaknesses as a candidate. But many of his weaknesses and his lack of experience were known going into the primaries. That should have been enough for Republican leaders to challenge Donald Trump’s insistence that Walker was the best candidate to run against Warnock.

In the future, the Republican Party might think twice about selecting a candidate based on a party leader’s whim and not experience, substance or a demonstration of electability. If there is one lesson we can take from the 2022 Georgia Senate election, it is that candidate quality matters. More

Climate action is firmly on the political agenda in both Australia and the United States, following a recent change in government in both nations. As this year’s Australia-US Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) get underway in Washington, the Albanese and Biden administrations appear keen for deeper bilateral cooperation on tackling climate change.

New research has found the political impetus for this cooperation is reflected in the views of Australians. It shows many Australians believe our defence alliance with the US should be extended to include greater collaboration on climate action.

In this respect, the US-Australia Alliance is seen by many Australians as an incomplete project. It’s now time for both the Australian and US governments to turn their rhetoric on climate cooperation into reality.

Many Australians believe our defence alliance with the US should be extended to include greater collaboration on climate action.
Evan Vucci/AP

The shifting sands of climate politics

In August, the Albanese government passed its Climate Change Bill, enshrining into law an emissions reduction target of 43% from 2005 levels by 2030, and net-zero emissions by 2050.

On taking office, Albanese also announced a major review of security threats posed by the climate crisis.

The Biden administration has also passed a number of laws with significant climate provisions. They include new infrastructure laws, the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act – the latter billed as the most significant climate legislation in US history.

The outcome of last month’s midterm US elections will, however, hamper Biden’s climate efforts. Republicans now narrowly control the US House of Representatives. This means climate policy will likely be targeted and piecemeal at least until the 2024 US presidential elections.

But the Democrats’ continued control of the Senate still leaves room for progress on climate action. This is most likely on issues with bipartisan consensus such as boosting US competitiveness with China and reducing dependence on Russian oil and gas.

Read more:
The US has finally passed a huge climate bill. Australia needs to keep up

Ohio Republican JD Vance declares electoral victory in the midterm elections last month. The Republicans gained control of the House, but the Democrats still control the Senate.
AP

Stronger together

Both the US and Australian governments have also recognised the need for deeper bilateral cooperation on climate action.

In opposition, Albanese said:

We should immediately deepen US-Australian cooperation on climate change security issues […] On coming to office, I will make comprehensive co-operation on climate change a hallmark of Alliance co-operation.

And in Washington in July this year, Defence Minister Richard Marles reiterated that climate change was “the single greatest threat” to the lives and livelihoods of Australia’s Pacific Island neighbours. He declared “Australia will lift its weight” in response – including by making climate change a pillar of the US-Australia alliance.

Senior Australian and US defence officials have also reaffirmed their commitment to “evolving” the alliance – including through better engagement on climate change – to support stability and security in the Indo-Pacific.

Read more:
COP27 was disappointing, but 2022 remains an historic year for international climate policy

What does the Australian public want?

Our research suggests the Australian community also wants to see greater collaboration with the US on the wicked climate change problem.

Polling conducted by the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre found climate change was the most important international issue for respondents (57%). It came ahead of security cooperation with the US and Japan (56%), increasing trade and investment in Asia (49%) and standing up to China (48%).

Some 77% of participants said fighting climate change with the US was important for Australia. This view was largely bipartisan: 87% of Labor voters and 73% of Coalition voters said this cooperation was very important or somewhat important.

Respondents aged 18 to 34 were the most likely to support climate action in concert with the US.

People aged 18 to 34 were most likely to support US-Australia cooperation on climate action.
James Ross/AAP

This data is backed by qualitative evidence gathered by myself and colleagues Andrew O’Neil and Caitlin Byrne (of Griffith University) and Stephan Fruhling (of the Australian National University). It involved community focus groups across all states and territories in Australia over the last 14 months.

We held 29 discussions with 232 community members to gauge their views on the Australia-US Alliance. The participants were drawn from wide-ranging backgrounds and recruited via a range of strategies to ensure diverse representation.

One key theme to emerge was that climate change is considered an important policy area for the future of the alliance. As one participant said:

There is an opportunity for Australia to use the Alliance for climate change and elaborate on how we define security. I think there’s a shared interest in climate policy and climate security and bringing that into AUKUS. There’s an opportunity to tie that more closely to the Alliance.

Participants broadly expressed the view that the alliance should adapt to new and emerging challenges to remain relevant in the 21st century. As one participant put it:

The Alliance is considered unbreakable so we should see how far it can be stretched.

Another participant observed:

The alliance needs to be repurposed to address real security threats rather than imagined ones — most significantly the impacts of climate change.

There is a real opportunity now to expand thinking around the alliance beyond binary questions of security and defence, to position Australia as an active peace-builder rather than a reactionary force. Climate action, and leveraging the alliance to pursue it, is central to that.

Many Australians believe cooperation with the US should extend far beyond defence. Pictured: Australian and US defence personnel fire a M777 Howitzer during a joint exercise last year.
Department of Defence

Climate collaboration is key to an enduring alliance

The Australian government — by itself and in partnership with US counterparts — should inject greater energy into deeper collaboration with the US on climate action.

In opposition, Albanese outlined what that cooperation should entail, saying:

We must develop operational plans to address the natural disasters and humanitarian outcomes. We must study and plan for how other states may seek to exploit its impacts on regional security.

We must develop capabilities and shared responsibilities to mitigate its worst impacts. We should cooperate on technological development to take advantage of the economic opportunity that comes from the shift to clean energy.

As our research shows, the Australian public sees such collaboration is a key to the alliance’s future.

Read more:
COP27: one big breakthrough but ultimately an inadequate response to the climate crisis More

In Georgia, if no candidate receives 50% of the general election vote for a statewide or congressional district race, there’s a runoff between the top two vote-getters. In recent decades, the Peach State has had four high-profile runoff elections, all for the U.S. Senate.

The last was on Jan. 5, 2021, when, in a pair of runoffs, the state made history by electing Raphael Warnock, the first African American U.S. senator elected in the state and in the Deep South since 1878, and Jon Ossoff, the first Southern Jewish U.S. senator elected since 1974.

Enthusiasm is strong for the Dec. 6, 2022, runoff election between Warnock, the Democratic incumbent, and former University of Georgia football star Herschel Walker, the Republican candidate.

But beyond the hype, there’s a cost. Runoff elections in the state are expensive. Turnout is also typically lower in runoffs than in general elections, meaning not as many people’s voices are ultimately involved in the final decision.

Four runoff elections, no clear trend

Republicans and Democrats split the four runoff elections, which were in 1992 between incumbent Wyche Fowler, a Democrat, and Republican challenger Paul Coverdell; in 2008 between incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss and Democratic challenger Jim Martin; and two in 2020 – one between Ossoff and incumbent Republican David Perdue, and the other between Warnock and incumbent Republican Kelly Loeffler.

In two cases, the person who finished ahead in the original election lost the runoff. Three of four incumbents lost the runoff, but Loeffler had held that office for barely a year, and had never held another elective office – so she may not have had a full incumbent’s advantage.

The only consistent trend is that the runoff elections drew fewer voters than the general elections that preceded them. In 2021, the runoffs between Ossoff and Perdue and Warnock and Loeffler drew national media interest and a surge of political donations, because the balance of power in the Senate was at stake. Even then, those elections had lower vote totals – though only slightly – than the November 2020 general election that had preceded the runoffs.

In 1992 and 2008, the drop in turnout was much more pronounced, declining by more than 20 percentage points.

A costly endeavor

Runoff elections are expensive for the Peach State.

Kennesaw State University professors Kerwin Swint and J. Benjamin Taylor teamed up with their student Ayla McGinnis to analyze electoral and financial data from 59 of Georgia’s 159 counties. They estimated the 2020 Senate runoffs cost $75 million statewide to determine who would sit in the Senate.

There is a less expensive way. “You can accomplish the same thing with instant runoff voting as with a general election runoff without conducting a whole separate election,” Swint has said. “It’s quick, it’s cheap, it does the same thing, so it’s something Georgia should take a look at.”

In instant-runoff voting, also sometimes called ranked-choice voting, voters indicate the order in which they prefer candidates. If no majority winner emerges immediately, the lowest vote-getter is dropped, and the votes that had been for that person are reassigned to those voters’ next-best choices. The process continues until one candidate gets more than half of the votes.

There may be an even simpler solution.

“The other thing Georgia could take a look at is just eliminating runoffs altogether and moving to a plurality vote,” in which the person who gets more votes than any other wins, Swint said.

So far, early voting for this year’s Georgia runoff has broken records. But it has cost a lot, and the number of votes cast still may not match the first-round totals. Perhaps that’s why instant-runoff voting is already being proposed for future Georgia elections. More