October 24, 2024 09:51 AM UTC

Many invalidated ballots likely to result from Proposition 131

•  
• by: Evie Hudak

Proposition 131 is promoted as being focused on ranked-choice voting, but it is much more about implementing radical changes to the primary election system and restricting voter choice in the general election. The proposition would complicate the voting process, favor wealthier candidates, confuse voters, and fail to deliver a better system.

This measure introduces a convoluted primary voting method, potentially requiring either two separate ballots or, worse, one ballot with two sections containing entirely different voting procedures. It proposes an “all-candidate” primary for U.S. Senate and House, statewide positions like governor, and state Senate and House, asking primary voters to choose from all candidates for each of these races, regardless of political affiliation.

The top four candidates for each position would advance to the general election, regardless of the percentage of the votes they received. At the same time, voters would use the current primary process for U.S. president and many local races, selecting only one candidate for each position from their chosen political party.

This measure also requires a confusing process for the general election that is likely to create many invalidated ballots. For each specified federal and state race, voters would cast four “ranked preference” votes per race, and a computerized runoff would decide winners if no one gets 50%. If voters don’t use all four ranked votes for those races, they would lose their vote in the subsequent rounds of the computerized runoff. That’s why the University of Pennsylvania says ballots cast in RCV elections are 10 times more likely to be invalidated due to a mistake, without the voter knowing. For the presidential and local races, voters would use the current method of voting for only one candidate per race.

The “all-candidate” portion of Proposition 131 is designed to weaken the party system that many voters rely on to make informed decisions. Political parties provide voters with a framework to understand where candidates stand on key issues. Without this, voters may struggle to identify candidates’ policy positions or ideological leanings, thus tilting the advantage to wealthy candidates and wealthy donors who can afford to run expensive campaigns to influence voters. The 131 model would likely expand the use of “dark money” PACs and independent expenditures with murky or non-existent reporting rules.

And after spending an estimated $21 million in taxpayer money to rework our elections required to implement this measure, we’re not likely to see the promised results. In 2023, the University of Minnesota studied RCV elections in other states and cities and found little to no evidence it will produce the touted results of tempering elections, increasing turnout, and electing more moderate or diverse candidates.

Rather than experimenting with a flawed system like Proposition 131, we should focus on improving voter education and ensuring that all Coloradans can participate in a fair and democratic process.

This commentary does not reflect the position of any of the organizations the author belongs to other than the Colorado Democratic Party.