As two former Colorado Secretaries of State, we have studied the evolution of elections and voting laws with keen eyes through the years. We witnessed the first absentee ballots, the creation of vote centers, implementation of vote by mail, registration reforms, and reforms allowing unaffiliated voters to participate in partisan primaries since 2018, among other improvements to Colorado’s election model.
And while the merits of each of those changes are now undeniable, we know Colorado can still do better. That’s why we believe it’s time to pass Proposition 131.
Proposition 131 will further advance Colorado’s state and federal legislative election process by establishing nonpartisan open primaries where all candidates are listed on one ballot and the four candidates that receive the most votes, regardless of political party, advance to a ranked choice November General Election.
That’s a meaningful step toward a more democratic process that empowers Colorado voters with a stronger voice in choosing their elected officials, since primaries will no longer serve as the decisive election in the state’s many party-dominant districts and the impacts of “spoiler” candidates on the extreme fringes of either party will be minimized. That translates to less polarized, more effective governance that better reflects the will of the people.
In a state – and a nation – where essentially half of all registered voters are unaffiliated with any political party, the time for open primaries and ranked voting has come. As it now stands, party insiders and special interests have gained control of our politics because election rules allow them to all but hand-pick party nominees, leaving a majority of Colorado voters on the sidelines.
Colorado’s most recent primary elections saw just 26% of eligible voters cast a ballot to determine the candidates in the November election, many of them running unopposed. As a result, a given political party’s preferred candidate is often elected to office by what amounts to only a small percentage of the voting population.
The proposed reforms will not only open the entire election process to more voters, but they will also open it to more candidates, thereby expanding voter choices and diminishing the power of political insiders to decide who gets elected on behalf of the people.
Defenders — and benefactors — of the status quo are desperately trying to paint these reforms as too confusing or too difficult to implement. Those are the same arguments that were used to oppose the switch to all-mail ballots, same-day voter registration, and allowing independent voters to vote in primaries. They weren’t true then, and they’re not true now. (In fact, we have tremendous faith in Colorado voters and our excellent election clerks to rise to the occasion once again.)
We take pride in election processes that have earned Colorado recognition as a leader in election processes nationwide. Prop 131 changes none of those things. It merely improves our voting system so that voters have more choices and candidates respond to a broader group of voters.
Four states currently have open primaries and nearly 60 jurisdictions across the country have enacted ranked voting, a reform that is regarded as one of the best strategies available to lower the temperature in politics. Winners are the candidates who can build both deep and broad support through civility, outreach to voters, and issues-focused campaigns.
But the ultimate winners are Colorado voters, who gain more choice and more voice in their elections through Proposition 131. Please join us in voting “yes on 131” in this election.
Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman was elected Colorado Secretary of State in 2006.
Bernie Buescher was appointed as Colorado Secretary of State in 2009.
The writers have noted that Prop 131 will reduce the power of political parties but have ignored (purposefully, I think) to address the increased role that money will play in our elections. With more candidates on ballots, getting one’s message through to voters will become far more difficult and costly. Voters can now see the number of “dark money” ads running on television, social media, and in their mailboxes — that will only increase. Candidates with the closest ties to monied interests will be the most successful, truly giving us the “best government money can buy.” VOTE NO on Prop 131.
Laurence- Your logic is seriously flawed. Prop 131 decimates the value propositions the lobbyists and political consultants routinely pitch to the wealthy oligarchs and unions in their efforts to manipulate our elections. Beating one candidate comes cheap because the pitch is simple– “the other guy is evil.” Beating three other candidates, not so cheap and easy.
We need more competition to devalue the oligarchs’ and unions’ cash in our elections– not less.
Yes on Prop 131 1000%.
As a rabidly moderate Independent, I’m voting YES on Prop 131.
Its time to put both major parties in the corner and Prop 131 does this. More specifically, it deflates the vote-buying power of the wealthy campaign donor’s cash, favors the more moderate candidates and makes the official’s performance matter again. Prop 131 puts voters’ interests first– not the extremists’ who have hijacked our democracy and the oligarchs who fund them under a duopolistic system optimized to make our elections cheap for them to buy.
Also, why should any of my tax dollars go for administering strictly partisan primaries? The two parties are private entities not given any particular preferred status in the US Constitution. Yet people pretend otherwise. Allowing the two parties preferred status is not fair, not democratic and not effective for governing.
Those who fear Prop 131, fear competition. They might be more comfortable living in Russia, Iran, China or North Korea where there is no political competition to fear.
Yes on Prop 131 1000%!
I’ve read about Prop 131, and done research, attended a meeting about it, and looked at the lists of who is supporting and opposing it. It’s very hard to make an informed decision. There was no education of the public about this before it showed up on our ballot. The money supporting all the enormous number of ads for it are from ultra-wealthy and mainly out-of-state from what I can tell. Although many support it, there are also a lot opposing it that are people and legislators that I very much respect. No input was gotten from the actual people who run our election system, nor from the public at all. Our legislators as a group have not tried to inform us. It feels like it’s being rammed through without a public hearing or helpful, understandable education materials, and an evaluation of how this has worked in other states – well or not? It’s a huge change that even the proponents admit will be complicated and expensive, and require some big changes for voters at a time when they have concerns about our voting system, which is the sugject of court cases in every state and before, during and after our elections. We are already stretching our election employees and volunteers beyond what they ever thought they would have to handle and they receive dangerous threats now to their safety. You need a confident electorate to adjust to big changes in the voting system like Prop 131. An editorial and comments to it in the paper really do not educate us about how this will work, what the benefits are, how this will get hashed out to apply to CO, and how it has worked in other similar-sized states. I am open to Prop 131, but not until I understand the answers to these questions – and I cannot find out how to get that information, if it even exists. It’s too important to just hope it all goes well.
As the Colorado Forward Party Chair, I wholeheartedly supported Prop 131. The Forward Party, nationally and in Colorado, exists to fight political extremism, so we focus on structural electoral reform and identifying candidates who put their voters before their party and before their self-interests. Five of our 15 endorsed candidates (Ds & Rs) won on November 5th.
The dialogue I have had with many regarding Prop 131 reflect concerns about complexity, cost, and the motivations of its financial backers. I have worked with the Prop 131 team, and they are dedicated to solving one of the significant problems facing our democracy: a structural deficiency in our election system that rewards extreme behaviors. This deficiency is caused by the major party’s control of taxpayer-funded primary elections, where a small percentage of the electorate (the party base) voters get to determine who the rest of us vote for in the general election.
Prop 131 has two basic principles:
1) Voters should get to vote for who they want in the primary
2) The winner of the top 4 ranked-choice general election should have a majority of the votes
Prop 131 lost on November 5th. The voters (and the two major parties) spoke, but electoral reform will return with lessons learned from this setback.
This is about voters having more choice at the ballot box and, through that choice, having candidates in the primary who need to appeal to the largest group of voters, “The Unaffiliated,” which is 49% of all Colorado voters.
Dave Ryan
ColoradoForwardParty.com