Electoral voting has long been touted as a democratizing force by advocates on the left. However, a 2024 Colorado ballot measure that would implement snap elections for state and federal at-large races has been largely criticized by the same groups.

In addition to establishing rank-and-file elections for general elections, Proposition 131 would implement a the first four primaries for governor, attorney general, and federal congressional races, among others. This new primary process would put candidates from all parties in competition for four seats on the general election ballot — only the candidates with the most primary votes would advance.

The measure would theoretically allow four candidates from the same party to compete in a general election (or four candidates from four different parties). Critics say the change would increase the money and manpower needed to run a successful political campaign because the primary would become as important as the general election.

“Right now, Colorado primaries tend to favor people who are more centrist or who have more connections,” said Boulder Progressives executive board member Lisa Sweeney-Miran. “We don’t think it will solve this problem. We think it will make it worse.”

Essentially, Proposition 131 seeks to eliminate Colorado’s primary format and replace it with a winner-take-all system, much like our current general election process. Detractors, such as Sweeney-Miran, say the harm of a so-called “jungle primary” would negate the benefits of an instant general election. Supporters, however, argued that any move toward a ranked choice system is a step in the right direction.

“While Colorado has among the best voter integrity and access protections, no voting system is perfect.” Gov. Jared Polis posted on Facebook in September. “I think instant voting is better than our current system because it gives voters more options.”

How does ranked choice affect political outcomes?

There’s no way to know exactly how the early-ranked election will affect Colorado politics, but political scientists have conducted research in recent years that may provide some clues.

Alan Simmons is director of research at the Center for Public Policy and Leadership at the University of Illinois Springfield. His research group published a study which investigated how ranked-choice voting could affect the outcome of the US presidential election. In 2020, Simmons and his collaborators solicited mock ballots from 62 survey respondents. Half of the respondents voted in a ranked-choice format, which was clearly explained to them, while the other half voted in a standard format.

The researchers found that the ranked choice system clearly increased support for third-party candidates (Green Party and Libertarian candidates).

“People are liberated because they don’t feel like they’re wasting their vote,” Simmons told KUNC.

Interestingly, Simmons and other researchers also found that ranked-choice voters tend to be more satisfied with election results.

“Your first choice might not win, but your second choice did,” Simmons said. “You still get that benefit. You had to mark that on paper too.”

While ranked-choice voting has a substantial body of academic research behind it, the top four primaries are relatively untested. Alaska was the first state to use the format in 2022. This year, Alaska voters will vote on a measure to repeal the system in favor of a partisan mayor.

Voter education

According to Simmons, all of the potential benefits of ranked choice depend on an effective voter education effort. Conversely, if voters don’t understand the system, they won’t reap the rewards.

Boulder County Clerk and reporter Molly Fitzpatrick echoed that sentiment. Her team supervised launching a new ranked choice system for Boulder’s mayoral race last year. They were given three years to design, test and implement the system after Boulder voters passed a ballot measure in 2020. According to Fitzpatrick, that was plenty of time to get the word out.

“We wanted the voters to understand what was going on,” Fitzpatrick told KUNC.

Fitzpatrick questioned the two-year deadline that Proposition 131 proposes to implement a statewide first-come, first-served system.

“There’s no governance for a lot of that right now,” she said. “There are a lot of unanswered questions.”

However, a Senate bill passed last summer would now require the new format to be tested in a pilot group of local districts before being implemented on a statewide scale. The new law could have the effect of delaying Proposition 131 if it passes. Supporters, including the governor of Polisthey argue that this delay will give election officials enough time to educate voters and fix problems in the system.

Is there a better way?

Some detractors, including US Rep. Lauren Boeberthave spoken out against the tiered choice aspect of Proposition 131. However, most opposition arguments have instead focused on the measure’s main top-four clause.

Opponents point to Maine’s ranked choice system as a better model. In 2017, the state implemented a ranked choice system in both the primary and general election phases for federal seats. The new system maintains partisan primaries, meaning voters choose only one party to cast their primary vote with.

Detractors say Kent Thiry, Proposition 131’s leading backer, has more to gain from a top-four primary than Colorado voters. Thiry is the CEO of the health care company DaVita and contributed nearly $1.5 million in personal funds to support the measure. according to Ballotpedia.

“Billionaires trying to buy elections has been part of the problem in politics since the beginning, and this measure makes it even easier for them to tilt the system in their favor,” Shad Murib, chairman of the Colorado Democratic Party, wrote in a statement. “Proposition 131 is an overly complicated and expensive measure created by billionaire Kent Thiry with no input from election clerks.”

Supporters, on the other hand, argue that the main effect of the new system will be to maximize the impact of each vote, regardless of the voters’ political affiliation.

“Ultimately, our November ballot measure will give voters better candidate choices and a greater voice in our elections,” the website for First, the voters of Coloradothe advocacy group formed around Proposition 131.

On Election Day, Coloradoans will decide whether to overhaul the statewide election system or maintain the status quo. The result will affect state elections for years to come.