“This is the most important election of our lifetime,” has become a common refrain over the past several months. I do not disagree. The presidential election will have significant and potentially dire consequences for our democracy.
But as a deep blue state, Colorado is no more involved in that election than our ruby red neighbors in Utah, Wyoming and Kansas. Only about seven swing states will cast consequential votes for the presidency.
However, Coloradans could be making a choice that affects not only how democracy works in our state, but it may build momentum for change across the country. Proposition 131 would breathe new life into our dying electoral system.
By adopting a top-four open primary in conjunction with a ranked choice general election, the ballot measure would create an Alaska-style election system. I have been a fan of that change for years. Primarily, I think it is necessary to change the malignant cancer growing in our current form of government: extreme partisan polarity.
As it stands, we are not governed by “we the people.” Rather a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction determines who will govern in our state.
Out of roughly 5.8 million people in Colorado, only about 4.6 million are registered to vote according to the Secretary of State (with only about 3.9 active voters). But not all of those voters get to vote in a primary. For example, there are only about 910,000 active Republican voters eligible to vote in a Republican primary (plus another 1.9 million unaffiliated voters who may choose to vote in either major party primary). Only a fraction of those eligible to vote in a primary do, though; just under 26% of active voters participated in this past June’s primaries. And of that, a candidate only needs to win a majority — or often a plurality if there are multiple candidates in the same race.
Again, we are talking about fractions of fractions of fractions.
With the numbers shrinking so quickly, candidates realize that it does not take a large coalition to win a primary election. It just takes a dedicated coalition. And those are most frequently found on the far edges of our political parties.
Worse, the primary is effectively the election for most public offices. For example, out of the 65 Colorado state House seats up for election in November, only 11 are even arguably competitive. Thirteen seats between the state House and state Senate do not have a major-party challenger. This is not a function of gerrymandering as some claim; it is a natural consequence of community self-selection. That means that more than 80% of our legislators are determined by who wins the primary in June.
Taken together, that is a recipe for polarized outcomes. Republicans elect far-right officials in the districts they control, Democrats put the most progressive candidates into office in theirs. In the halls of the Capital, it becomes oil and water.
Proposition 131 would scrap this dysfunctional system. Voters would get real choices in both June and November.
The primary would operate much like the Denver mayoral race in 2023, which whittled down 16 candidates in April to a two-person runoff in June. Only instead of two people advancing, we will have four.
Those four could then be ranked by voters in order of preference.That has multiple positive effects on elections.
First, voters do not have to choose between “throwing their vote away” for a preferred candidate who is unlikely to win or voting for someone they might like less, but think has a chance to serve. This is a common problem for voters who support candidates from small parties such as Libertarians and the Green Party.
Second, voters would often see different “flavors” of candidates from the same party on the ballot. That acts as a disincentive to engage in pandering to the extremes of either party.
Colorado’s 4th Congressional District race provides a perfect example. Rep. Lauren Boebert won her primary without a majority because five other Republicans ran against her. Now she is facing off against Trisha Calvarese in a district that heavily favors the Republican. Even Calvarese’s substantial fundraising advantage and a perfect campaign may not be enough to overcome the district’s registration numbers.
In a Proposition 131 world, Boebert might be on the ballot with not just Calvarese, but maybe two other Republicans. There is a good chance one or both would be less extreme than Boebert. If Calvarese could not pull off the upset, voters adamantly opposed to Boebert would still get a chance to support more palatable contenders.
The far-right Boebert would have a much more difficult time holding her seat with the rhetoric she continuously spews.
Without that change, Boebert will hold that seat until she decides to hang up her holster. If she beats a well-funded Calvarese by double-digits, she will never have another serious challenge again.
If Colorado wants a better future, if it wants one where the ills of political polarization have been curbed, Proposition 131 is the best answer we have. That is the existential question Coloradans face on Nov. 5.
Mario Nicolais is an attorney and columnist who writes on law enforcement, the legal system, health care and public policy. Follow him on Twitter: @MarioNicolaiEsq.
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 [email protected].
Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.
Link to original article