As this article points out, RCV/IRV tends to threaten established interests, and can be opposed by both major parties. Higher quality representation is a good thing, in and of itself. The whole article is good, but this excerpt shows the kind of opposition RCV/IRV faces. The opposition exists in Georgia too, though the opponents have been unsuccessful thus far.

What do Colorado, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana have in common this election season? Govs. Kay Ivey (R-AL), Tate Reeves (R-MS), Jeff Landry (R-LA), and Jared Polis (D-CO) have all signed bills that would ban or seriously impede the implementation of ranked-choice voting. In the past two months, these states have frowned on RCV, a small-d democratic reform hailed by its supporters as a way to increase candidate choice, jump-start higher voter turnout, and generate more overall enthusiasm in campaigns and elections in a country where staying home and not voting might as well be its own political party.

Kentucky and Oklahoma have also recently banned RCV, and Florida, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, and Tennessee have nixed the reform as well.

There are various ranked-choice voting frameworks, but the general premise is that voters can better express their interests by indicating first, second, third, or more choices. The candidate who secures a majority of votes wins. But if no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the voters’ first choices, the person with the least number of votes drops out of contention. That candidate’s votes are then distributed to those voters’ second choices for a second round of counting. Votes will continue to be redistributed to the remaining candidates until there is a winner.

Read more here.