Ranked-choice voting has long been touted as a democratizing force by advocates on the left. Yet, a 2024 Colorado ballot measure that would implement instant runoff-elections for major state and federal races has been largely panned by those same groups.
In addition to establishing ranked-choice for the general election, would implement a for governor, attorney general and federal congressional races, among others. This new primary process would put candidates from all parties in competition for four slots on the general election ballot 鈥� only candidates with the most primary votes would advance.
Get top headlines and KUNC reporting directly to your mailbox each week when you subscribe to In The NoCo.
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 labor required to run a successful political campaign because the primary would become just as important as the general election.
鈥淎t the moment, Colorado primaries tend to favor folks who are more centrist or who have more connections,鈥� said executive board member Lisa Sweeney-Miran. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 believe it鈥檚 going to solve that problem. We believe it鈥檚 going to exacerbate it.鈥�
Essentially, Proposition 131 aims to scrap Colorado鈥檚 primary format and replace it with a winners-take-all system, much like our current general election process. Detractors, like Sweeney-Miran, say the harm of a so-called 鈥渏ungle primary鈥� would negate the benefit of an instant-runoff general election. Proponents, though, have argued that any step toward a ranked-choice system is a step in the right direction.
鈥淲hile Colorado has among the best voter integrity and access protections, no system of voting is perfect,鈥� . 鈥淚 think instant runoff voting is better than our current system because it gives voters more choices.鈥�
How does ranked-choice affect political outcomes?
There鈥檚 no way to know exactly how ranked-choice will affect politics in Colorado ahead of time, but in recent years political scientists have conducted research that might offer some hints.
Alan Simmons is the research director at the Center for State Policy and Leadership at the University of Illinois Springfield. His research group that investigated how ranked-choice voting might affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. In 2020, Simmons and his collaborators solicited mock ballots from 602 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 (candidates from the Green and Libertarian Parties).
鈥淧eople are freed up because they don鈥檛 feel like they鈥檙e wasting their vote,鈥� Simmons told KUNC.
Interestingly, Simmons and other researchers have also found that ranked-choice voters tend to be more satisfied with election outcomes.
鈥淵our first choice might not win, but your second choice did,鈥� Simmons said. 鈥淵ou still get that benefit. You also had to mark that on paper.鈥�
While ranked-choice voting has a substantial body of academic research behind it, the top four primary is relatively untested. Alaska was the first state to use the format in 2022. This year, .
Voter education
According to Simmons, all of the potential benefits of ranked-choice hinge on an effective voter education outreach effort. Conversely, if voters don鈥檛 understand the system, they won鈥檛 reap the rewards.
Boulder County clerk and recorder Molly Fitzpatrick echoed this sentiment. Her team oversaw for The City of Boulder鈥檚 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, it was just enough time to get the word out.
鈥淲e wanted voters to understand what was happening,鈥� Fitzpatrick told KUNC.
Fitzpatrick questioned the two-year deadline that Proposition 131 proposes for implementing a state-wide ranked-choice system.
鈥淭here鈥檚 no governance for a lot of this right now,鈥� she said. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a lot of unanswered questions.鈥�
However, would now require the new format to be tested in a pilot group of local districts before being implemented at a state-wide scale. The new law could have the effect of delaying Proposition 131 if it is passed. Proponents, , argue that this delay will give election officials enough time to educate constituents and work out the kinks in the system.
Is there a better way?
Some detractors, , have spoken out against the ranked-choice aspect of Proposition 131. Yet, most oppositional arguments have instead focused on the measure鈥檚 top-four primary clause.
Opponents point to as a better model. In 2017, the state implemented a ranked-choice system at both the primary and general election stages for federal seats. The new system keeps primaries partisan, meaning voters choose a single party to cast their primary vote with.
Detractors argue that Kent Thiry, the primary backer of Proposition 131, has more to gain from a top-four primary than Colorado voters do. Thiry is the former CEO of the health care firm DaVita, and has contributed nearly $1.5 million of personal funds to support the measure, .
鈥淏illionaires trying to buy elections is part of the problem with politics to begin with, and this measure makes it even easier for them to tilt the system in their favor,鈥� Colorado Democratic Party chair Shad Murib wrote in a statement. 鈥淧roposition 131 is an overly complicated and overly expensive measure created by billionaire Kent Thiry with zero input from election clerks.鈥�
Proponents, on the other hand, argue that the main effect of the new system will be maximizing the impact of each vote, regardless of voters' political affiliations.
鈥淚n the end, our November ballot measure will give voters better candidate choices, and a greater voice, in our elections,鈥� reads the website for , the advocacy group formed around Proposition 131.
On election day, Coloradans will decide whether to overhaul the state-wide election system or maintain the status quo. The result will impact state elections for years to come.
Correction: On Nov. 7, 2024 this story was corrected to say that Kent Thiry is the former CEO of Davita rather than the current CEO.
