Proposition 131 essentially amends the state election law to establish a top-four general election system for elections of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, Governor, Attorney general, Secretary of State, CU Board of Regents, State Board of Education and Colorado State legislature.
Presently, unaffiliated voters may participate in the primary, but unaffiliated candidates may not. Unaffiliated candidates may appear on the general election ballot if they meet the requirements (for example, required signatures).
Primary voters may only vote for the candidate of their stated political affiliation. Under Proposition 131, all candidates may appear on the primary ballot if they meet the criteria. You should know that if this proposition is passed, per Colorado Senate Bill 210 which was passed in 2024, 12 municipal governments will have to independently adopt, use and report on the new election system before Proposition 131 could be implemented.
This could potentially push the implementation date out to as late as 2028.
To read Hank Lacey’s article on ranked voting which was published in the Estes Valley Voice Sept. 27 and updated Sept. 29 with additional information, click here.
Proponents of the measure claim it will increase fairness in elections by allowing individuals who are not affiliated with specific parties to have a greater chance of winning an election.
Under the present system, candidates who receive the greatest number of votes in those elections are allowed to represent their party in the general election, regardless of the percentage of votes received (>50%). Under the RCV system, the voter is asked to “rank” a number of candidates according to their choice (first, second, third and so on). When the votes are tallied, if no candidate receives a clear majority (>50%) of the votes, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and the votes are re-tallied again.
The candidate with the least number of votes in the second tally is eliminated, and the votes are re-tallied until one candidate has the majority of votes.
If you have only voted for one candidate and that candidate gets eliminated on the first round of tallies, your vote essentially becomes eliminated.
Proponents of this bill include United America, whose primary contributor is Kathryn Murdoch, a left- leaning political and climate activist, and several wealthy Colorado corporate moguls such as Kent Thiry and Ben Walton.
First Choice Counts, of whom Coloradans for Accessible and Secure Elections was the largest contributor, is leading the opposition to the bill.
It is also opposed by the Republican Party, Democrat Party and the Green Party in Colorado.
Opponents believe the bill is self-serving because it allows big money to put individuals on the ticket who can protect and promote their corporate interests.
To illustrate their massive funding, proponents of the bill have a war-chest of around $8.4 million compared to the opposition’s $62K.
In the following paragraphs, I would like to discuss the risks of passing this ill-advised bill, illustrate how it has failed in other states and offer how we can stop its implementation.
Cons of RCV:
- It relies on precise date entry and well-programmed computers having to tabulate more than just a few votes, more than just a few times to get to a winner, increasing the likelihood of error or miscalculations.
- In some areas, it is subject to the local laws of election officials, which could eliminate more than one candidate at once, or change how they treat over votes (giving more than one candidate the same ranking), or under votes (skipping a ranking by ranking a candidate first, second and then fourth).
- RCV makes it harder to vote, harder to count and much harder to ensure a transparent and accountable democratic process. The RCV ballot is longer and takes more time to complete, using more paper, and requiring the voter to research a plethora of candidates, complicating the voting process and increasing the likelihood of making a mistake and getting your ballot disqualified. Alaska had 19 candidates on its 2022 primary ballot after adopting RCV.
In addition, some races may not be included in the RCV treatment, requiring two separate ballots to be mailed to the voter, further complicating the process.
For many voters, who chafe under time constraints trying to decipher a complicated voting process, it may become just not worth the effort, disenfranchising them from taking advantage of their constitutional rights. This is especially a challenge for the elderly, low-income and ESL voter, who may not have access to the resources to make an informed decision.
- It requires special election equipment to scan and tabulate the ballots, and there is no quick way to confirm the accuracy of the computer processes (i.e., huge risk of error!).
In Alameda County, California, a data entry error in a school board election using RCV went undetected, resulting in the wrong School Board member being certified the winner. This resulted in a lengthy legal battle, though the correct winner was eventually allowed to assume office.
It is estimated that RCV will increase the costs of the Department of State in Colorado by $100,000 the first year, and around $6 Million each year thereafter, a burden that will be borne by the taxpayers.
In addition, the costs of conducting elections will increase to around $5 Million for primaries, and $4 Million for general elections, also borne by taxpayers.
- Multiple rounds of tabulation cannot even begin until every single ballot is processed. For example, in the state of Alaska, tabulation doesn’t begin until 15 days after election day. For those who advocate for election day results, this is an egregious step backwards to that end.
Speaking of Alaska, they voted for RCV in 2020 but are on track to repeal it in the upcoming election. The following is cited from the Glendale Cherry Creek Chronicle:
“Alaska was so disgusted by Thiry’s system that voters have placed a proposition to get rid of nonpartisan jungle primaries and rank choice voting on the ballot this year. It is hoped that the latest fool’s gold proposition by Kent Thiry is decisively voted down by the Colorado voters. If not, it may be one of the last votes by Colorado voters that matters.”
- Since each round of tabulation has the potential to be close, this would make hand re-counts a virtual impossibility. Add to that the number of re-tabulations to arrive at a winner that could
happen, and it could become a nightmare to arrive at a winner in time for the legal date to certify the election. In Colorado it is 22 days after a local election and 27 days after a state election to certify.
How to Stop RCV:
Seeing the handwriting on the wall, about a fifth of our states have enacted laws prohibiting RCV from becoming a ballot issue in their states. Florida, Tennessee, Idaho, South Dakota, Montana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana are among those states.
Quoted from the website First Choice Counts, this gives you an idea of how it has fared in other US States:
“The best argument against Ranked Choice Voting is its own track record. In over 100 years’ experience with RCV in America, from FL to AK, among all jurisdictions that have tried it, OVER 85% END UP REPEALING IT!”
In our own state of Colorado, the town of Aspen used a component of RCV, IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) in their 2009 municipal elections, but after seeing it in action, they decided to repeal it. Read the article in the Aspen Daily News.
Given the likelihood of computer error, bloated costs to conduct elections, complexity in voting and extremely complicated process of arriving at a clear winner that could occur in RCV voting, I highly encourage you to vote NO on Proposition 131! It is reasonable that all political affiliations or unaffiliated voters should be able to vote and/or appear as a candidate in our primaries but adopting such a convoluted and cumbersome system as RCV is not the answer for Colorado.
Sources:
2024 Colorado State Ballot Information Booklet, pp. 52-56.
Colorado Proposition 131, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024).
Martha Clark lives in Glen Haven. Estes Valley Voice Readers are welcome to submit Letters to the Editor (usually 400 words or less) and longer opinion editorial commentaries about issues of interest and importance to residents of the Estes Valley to news@estesvalleyvoice.com. We reserve the right to edit and format letters as appropriate for publication.
Thank you for this well written article explaining RCV. My worry is the misleading adds will fool people into voting for this very bad idea. It is amazing to me how much money is behind this proposal. I urge you to vote no on Prop 131.
Really great article…Thank you! My friends in California and Alaska feel so helpless because of RCV. They are urging me to tell others to please do not go that direction. You can never turn it around once you make that decision. As Martha pointed out many are trying to correct a bad decision…. VOTE NO!
RCV takes power out of the hands of the political parties and returns it to the voters. No wonder it is opposed by the Dems, the GOP, the Green Party and many other private interest. It is much harder for big money to manipulate than our present system.
RCV is a chance to move away from the extreme polarization of our politics. It has brought us our two most moderate Senators- Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. It also elected Alaska’s excellent moderate Rep Mary Peltola.
Prop 131 uses “top four” open primaries to winnow down a broad field, so that only the four most popular candidates appear on the final ballot. That makes RCV on the final ballot both simple and efficient. I strongly encourage voters to carefully read the arguments on both sides before deciding on this very important issue.
I would remind you that Alaska is on track to REPEAL RCV due to the problems its jungle primaries have caused in their state. I AGREE with you we need better choices in our primaries, but adopting this convoluted, unreliable and expensive proposition is NOT the answer. Why not pass a law that allows candidates who meet specific requirements (like a certain number of signatures from supporters) to gain a slot on our primary ballots, rather than shooting ourselves in the foot with this awful proposition. We can do better!