Indeed, direct racist attacks against Walker have received little comparative attention from the media, and commentators have used racial terms against Walker — as when he was subjected to an inflammatory attack on MSNBC by regular guest Elie Mystal — with little to no media outcry or network apologies.

The history behind the runoffs does show racist motivations in states like Georgia. In the 1960s, Georgia state Rep. Denmark Groover (D) introduced runoff legislation “as a means of circumventing what is called the Negro bloc vote.” However, that is not the only motivation for runoff laws, and it is not the value in their continued use.

In Arkansas, the majority rule for primaries was challenged on the same grounds of being racially motivated and maintained by the state. A federal court found a non-racial purpose in the law to require a majority-supported election as a “bedrock ingredient of democratic political philosophy.” That part of the opinion was upheld by the appellate court, though the court was reversed on other grounds.

Ten states apply this rule to primaries: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Vermont. In my view, the value of requiring majority support in a primary is only magnified in the general election and should be required in all states.

In reality, runoffs can enhance minority voters by forcing candidates to reach out to every major voting bloc. Roughly one-third of registered Georgia voters are Black. In 2021, even critics of runoffs acknowledged that minority voters carried the day. Indeed, now-Sen. Jon Ossoff (D) was in the same position as Walker this time; he received fewer votes than the incumbent, Republican David Perdue (who came within 0.3 percent of a majority in the first-round general election), but Ossoff ultimately prevailed in the runoff.

The political motivation for requiring runoffs decades ago does not mean it remains a racist practice or has a racially discriminatory purpose today. To the contrary, some of us have advocated for the expanded use of runoff rules as an enhancement to our democratic process.

Many countries require their leaders to secure a majority of votes in either a general or a runoff election. The United States, however, allows for the selection of a leader with less than half of the nation’s support, including leaders who actually receive fewer votes than their opponents — a reality which both parties have decried following various elections of the past, depending on which side won.

Of course, the presidential electoral system is locked into the Constitution and would require a constitutional amendment to change. However, congressional races are subject to state laws like Georgia’s. By requiring a runoff, candidates are forced to appeal to a broader swath of voters beyond simply their core party constituencies.

It is an important element of any democratic system for elected leaders to speak with the authority and legitimacy which comes from being chosen by a majority of their constituents. It is particularly important in the Senate, which was designed to moderate and tamp down the impulses of the House. Senators were given longer terms and larger constituencies than House members in part to create rivaling interests, even in states that are controlled by one party.

It may also favor rapidly vanishing moderates. Due to our deep political divisions and the effect of our primary systems, moderates are as scarce today as agnostics in the College of Cardinals. Incumbents tend to be favored in primaries, and congressional districts are now heavily gerrymandered by both parties to ensure reliable results. Some states have moved to break the hold of incumbents by wisely requiring the top two vote-getters from a primary to run against each other, even if they are from the same party.

However, requiring majority support to serve in Congress is another way to push candidates to the center in deeply divided districts.

After Dec. 6, Georgians will have a senator for the next six years that a majority actually wants. Thus, Georgia’s runoff should be an example of why such majority requirements are critical to advancing democracy. If you really worry about when “democracy dies,” it is when the majority’s views do not ultimately matter. In Georgia, democracy is not just “on the ballot” — it is the ballot.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.