When it comes to the evolution of our election system, Colorado voters haven’t missed a beat. From passing a comprehensive and proactive election model that included vote by mail, vote centers, and registration reforms in 2013 to allowing unaffiliated voters to participate in semi-closed partisan primaries since 2018, the voting public has not only adapted, but demonstrated its appreciation through increased turnout and stated satisfaction with those improvements.
Still, no one can say we’ve achieved perfection. Colorado’s election laws are constantly evolving to improve. And while we have a great voter access system in place, the way the primary system is designed still leaves much to be desired and many voters on the sidelines.
It’s important here to distinguish the “voter access system” from the “ballot access and design process.” Colorado enjoys a gold standard voter access system built around a process that falls short of offering voters meaningful choices on their ballots. Yet it’s plausible that the current gold standard could progress to platinum by adding to the existing structure and ensuring more choice for all.
It takes little scrutiny to identify the shortcomings of our current process, even in our most recent primary elections. As easy and secure as the primaries are, they remain semi-closed, limiting voters’ choices. Currently, Colorado’s independent voters can only participate by choosing one of the two major party ballots. That means nearly half the state’s voters (48%) are forced to pick a primary to participate in, effectively reducing their choices by half long before general election candidates are determined.
As a result, just 1-in-4 of Colorado voters participated in a primary in June, tacitly acknowledging that lack of a meaningful voice in deciding which names go on the ballot in November.
Unfortunately, the lack of participation has far-reaching implications on the general election as well. Special interests have gained control of our politics because election rules allow them to hand-pick party nominees — often leaving voters to choose between less desirable candidates, should they get any choice at all.
☀ MORE IN OPINION
Opinion: Proposition 131 is not worth the confusion and delays it would add to Colorado’s voting system
Zornio: Hurricane Helene proved nowhere is safe from climate change. Colorado is no exception.
Peter Moore: Grab ‘em by the ballot initiatives
In Colorado’s state legislature, for example, six of the 15 “open” House seats (no incumbent) saw only one candidate in the dominant-party primary — meaning the new representative has effectively been chosen before anyone has voted. And due to the number of “safe” seats in the House (won by 10+ points in 2022), the outcome of the low-turnout primary has essentially allowed 4% of voters to decide 83% of the representatives elected in November.
Higher up the ballot, Rep. Lauren Boebert won the low-turnout Republican primary in her new Congressional District 4 with just over 40% of the vote as the remainder splintered among five others. Viewed another way, Boebert will almost certainly be sent back to Congress with support from just 10% of registered voters in CD-4.
It’s important to note that none of these results reflect the choices of the majority of Colorado voters. Our current election process is designed in a way that encourages plurality winners and introduces opportunities for “spoilers” to impact election outcomes through vote splitting.
Voters deserve better. Voters’ voices deserve to be prioritized.
We can deliver platinum standard elections by empowering voters with meaningful choices. The process must change in a way that lets any voter — regardless of political affiliation — vote for any candidate, and requires winning candidates in the general election to earn majority support.
Proposition 131 on ballots this fall addresses these issues. The initiative will establish an all-candidate open primary process where the four candidates who receive the most votes — regardless of party — advance to the general election. There, voters will have the opportunity to rank the candidates, and the first candidate to earn the majority (50%+1), wins. If no one earns a majority, the fourth-place finisher is eliminated and the second choices for those ballots are redistributed accordingly. The process repeats until a majority winner is determined.
Colorado’s results reporting system will need an update to accommodate the new process, along with some adjustments to ballot design. But Colorado’s county clerks are a savvy group. There is absolutely no reason to believe they won’t rise to the occasion once again and implement the will of the voters.
Indeed, the system has already been proven in states like Alaska, where 85% of voters in the 2022 election called ranked choice voting “simple.” In Boulder, 86% of voters polled after last year’s ranked choice mayoral election said the process was “easy.”
Once Proposition 131 passes, Colorado election officials will have adequate time to implement the system — provided the state legislature repeals the underhanded provision to Senate Bill 210 intended to delay implementation that was slipped into the annual bill updating state election laws.
Anything less would serve as another example of our system diminishing the voices and choices of Colorado voters. And that is simply not up to our standards.
Amber McReynolds is an unaffiliated voter and former director of elections for the City and County of Denver.
Toni Larson, Ph.D., is a two-time president of the League of Women Voters of Colorado.
The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom.Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column.Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.
Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.
Type of Story: Opinion
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the author/producer’s interpretation of facts and data.