As a general matter, and entirely aside from my partisan political preferences, I am strongly in favor of ranked choice voting. I’m somewhat less enthusiastic about jungle primaries that lack ranked choice, but they’re still better than the status quo. Let me explain my reasoning a bit.

The norm in America is to have party primaries and then a single general election. In most cases, a simple plurality of the vote is sufficient to win a general election, and that means that voting for third party candidates is most often a lot like punching yourself in the face. You might prefer a candidate who is little further to the left or right than those of the major parties, but if you vote for them it only helps the politician you oppose the most. Green Party candidates hurt Democrats and Libertarian candidates hurt Republicans. So, what this system really does is force people to vote for their second choice.

With ranked choice voting, you can list the major candidates as your second choice, and most likely your vote will wind up counting for them. But a compelling third party candidate has a better chance because the people who support them actually feel free to vote for them. Say the Democrat has a bunch of ethical problems or maybe they’re going senile. The left might welcome a more viable and less compromised option. This system also opens the door for a third party to overtake a major party over time, and that’s almost entirely precluded right now by plurality, winner-take-all elections.

Ranked choice assures both that people have real choices and that the winner actually has majority support. Now, a simple jungle primary without ranked choice voting still somewhat suffers from the problem that you can hurt your own ideological side by voting for a third party, but it still leaves open a chance for third party candidates if they can come in second on the first ballot.

Consider a jungle primary state like California where the Republican Party is extremely weak. We often see two Democrats wind up in the general election, but a third party could seize this opening to run candidates who are more appealing than anything the GOP is likely to offer. If a few of them got elected, they could band together and have real influence in the U.S. House of Representatives, perhaps even deciding who serves as Speaker of the House.

What I can’t support, though, is what Montana Republicans are contemplating.

A Republican-backed bill to create a “jungle primary” that would box-out third party candidates in the next U.S. Senate race in Montana has advanced.

Senate Bill 566 would create a primary system in which the top two candidates who win the most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party. Right now, each party has separate primaries and advances a winner.

Sen. Greg Hertz, a Republican from Polson, said the bill aims to ensure the most popular candidate wins for a high profile office.

“These are six year terms and to me, if we’re going to send someone to Washington, D.C., they should have the majority support of our voters,” Hertz said.

Hertz called his bill a test run as it includes a sunset date in 2025.

It’s basically wrong to say that this bill will “box-out” third party candidates. They’ll have the opportunity to run in the jungle primary, and if they can come in second place, they will be on the ballot in the general election. It’s more accurate to say that this bill hopes to prevent a Republican from losing in the 2024 general election to incumbent Democratic senator Jon Tester because of too many votes being cast for the Libertarian candidate.

We know this bill is aimed at Tester for two reasons. First, it creates no jungle primary in 2024 for the state’s two federal congressional seats. It literally only applies to the Senate race. Second, it sunsets after 2024. That means it would not apply to Republican Steve Daines’ reelection bid in 2028 unless it is renewed.

Now, if Montana Republicans want to change their federal elections to either ranked choice or include a jungle primary, I support them even if it might cost Tester his seat. But they can’t pick and choose which federal elections this will apply to.

My reasoning here is straightforward. Election laws aimed at giving people cleaner choices are good. Making sure the winner has majority support is good. But election laws aimed at creating a predetermined winner are bad. This goes for gerrymandering districts, and it also goes for selective voter suppression laws. To some degree, as with gerrymandering, neither side can stop until both sides stop, but at least the laws apply statewide to every federal election. When you start passing laws that only apply to a single election, that’s a bridge too far. And it should not be legal.