Colorado Proposition 131: All-Candidate Primary and Ranked-Choice Voting

If Prop 131 passes, Coloradans might want to get ready for a whole bunch of petitioners knocking on their doors in the winter. That’s because any candidate who gathers enough valid signatures by mid-March will qualify for the June primary election ballot.

At its simplest, Colorado Proposition 131 would replace the voting system currently used in most large State of Colorado candidate elections. The new system would use an “all-candidate primary election,” in which all qualifying candidates would appear on the ballot, regardless of political party. Voters would choose only one candidate from this list. The top four finishers in this primary would appear on the general election ballot, again regardless of political party. In the general election, the outcome would be determined by Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), also known as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).

The new system would only need to be used in what the initiative defines as “covered races”: U.S. Senate; U.S. House of Representatives; Governor; Secretary of State; Attorney General; Treasurer; state House and state Senate; University of Colorado Board of Regents; and the State Board of Education. It would not apply to Presidential elections or local races like city councils, county offices, or local boards of education, though local jurisdictions might decide to adopt similar systems on their own.

Prop 131 is a citizen initiative, and proponents gathered enough valid petition signatures to place what was once known as Initiative 310 on the 2024 ballot. It’s a statutory measure, not a Constitutional amendment, and would pass with a simple majority of votes.

For one important note – the language of 131 says it would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026 if it passes, but implementation could be delayed due to language in a state bill, Senate Bill 24-210. There will be more information about SB-210 and its implications later in this post.

All-Candidate Primary Primer

Under current law in Colorado, both the Democratic and Republican parties hold separate primary elections to determine the single party nominee who will appear on the general election ballot. The phrase “open primary” might not be my preferred way to describe Colorado’s current system, but unaffiliated voters have been able to vote in major-party primaries without changing their voter registration to affiliate since the 2018 election cycle. Minor parties, such as the Libertarian or Green parties, might also have party primaries if they have more than one candidate running for the same office.

If Prop 131 passes, any candidate who meets qualifications would appear on the all-party primary election ballot. Candidates could qualify by collecting sufficient valid petition signatures (click here to see the current requirements for each office). Political parties could also still hold their own processes to nominate candidates for the primary. Today, the Democratic and Republican parties hold caucuses and assemblies as one way to choose nominees, plus major-party candidates can petition onto the primary ballots. Under Prop 131, parties could still hold caucuses and assemblies if that’s what they want to do, and candidates could still petition – but all qualifying candidates would appear on the same ballot.

Under Prop 131, all voters would receive a ballot with all qualifying candidates listed for their relevant districts, including candidates from all political parties and unaffiliated candidates. Voters would then choose one and only one candidate from the list. If voters choose more than one candidate in any given race, it would be considered an “overvote” and their votes on this race would be discarded. The top four vote-getters in this primary would qualify for the general election ballot, again regardless of party. If there are fewer than four candidates on the primary election ballot, all of them would qualify for the general election.

It’s possible under this system that:

No candidate from certain parties, or no unaffiliated candidates, might qualify for given general elections.
More than one candidate from certain parties, or more than one unaffiliated candidate, could qualify for the general election.
All four candidates for the general election could be from the same party, or all four candidates could be unaffiliated.
Second, third, or fourth-place finishers could reach the general election ballot with very small percentages of the vote. Yes, a candidate getting one vote might qualify!
Fewer than four candidates might qualify for the general election in certain districts.

But no matter the party affiliation of the candidates, the next step after the primary would be a general election held using Ranked-Choice Voting.

Ranked-Choice Under Prop 131

If Prop 131 passes, the up-to-four candidates receiving the most votes in a primary would move on to the general election, and the winner would be decided using Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), which might also be known as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). I don’t want to quibble too much about what to name the type of voting 131 would bring about (and I know people who would quibble), but I do think they’re both descriptive enough to include here.

For a simple outline of RCV:

Voters would choose candidates in order of preference (see image at right).
Voters wouldn’t need to mark a ranking for all of the candidates on their ballot if they don’t want to
If a candidate gets more than 50% of the first-choice vote on the first round, they win.
If there are more than two candidates and nobody reaches 50%, the candidate receiving the fewest first-choice votes in the first round of voting would be eliminated.
If one candidate is eliminated, the second-choice vote from ballots where the voter gave their first-choice vote to the candidate that was eliminated becomes the voter’s new first choice for the next round of voting.
After eliminating a candidate, a new round of tabulation would occur. If no candidate gets to 50%, the lowest finishing candidate would again be eliminated.
Candidates win once they have 50% or more of the vote, and the winning total might include second-choice votes coming over from ballots where the voters’ first-choice candidate was eliminated.

Voters don’t have to vote for all four candidates, but if all of the candidates they choose become eliminated before a round of voting, the ballot is considered “exhausted” and the voter’s choice(s) won’t count for anything in the final tabulation. For example, if a person only votes for one of the four candidates, and that candidate finishes fourth in first-choice votes, the voter will have no choices that move on to next rounds of voting.

The name Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) refers to how the digital voting system determines the winner. Under the more “traditional” live runoff elections, districts might hold an original election with any number of candidates, but might then hold a separate election involving the top two finishers on a later date. Under IRV, the digital system tabulates the winner based on the voters’ one-time choices, and there is no second election date.

For a few basic comparison points between live runoffs and IRV:

In a live runoff, voters get a second chance to evaluate the two finalists, and candidates can continue campaigning and messaging. The personality or political dynamics of an election also might change if there are only two candidates.
In IRV, there is no need for a second election because the digital system tabulates a winner. Typically, live runoffs cost money for staffing and mailings, but IRV elections won’t have that additional expense.
With IRV, voters don’t get a second chance to evaluate finalist candidates, and that might mean they can’t re-evaluate based on new information coming to light, or make new comparisons between just two candidates.
With live runoffs, it’s possible that voter turnout might be worse than in the original election. With IRV, there is only one ballot.
A live runoff might not be practical after a November general election, especially when a seat must be filled by January – and the runoff might happen during the holiday season when a lot of people probably wouldn’t want to focus on another election. With IRV, the “runoff” is done shortly after Election Day.

However, many elections in Colorado today don’t go to runoffs at all. Under “plurality” voting, also known as “First Past The Post,” the candidate with the most raw votes wins, and they don’t have to reach 50%. If there are three or more candidates, it’s fairly common for races not to have the winner at above 50% – while majorities are typically required in RCV, IRV, and live runoffs.

State Bill Would Slow The Roll

Ranked-Choice Voting is reasonably common nationwide, and it’s used in a few locations in Colorado, but it does require election offices to physically be able to tabulate the election, since it’s more complex than just counting vote totals. For offices that haven’t yet started using RCV, this might require new software and/or public spending. Also, certain voters in certain communities might not be familiar with RCV or with any other concept in Prop 131, which is not to say they wouldn’t understand it, but is to say that community education might be necessary.

While people on different sides of Prop 131 might debate the intent, the Colorado General Assembly approved an amendment to Senate Bill 24-210 that would delay full implementation of Prop 131 (if it passes) until certain conditions are met, including:

At least 12 municipalities of different population sizes in at least three counties must coordinate with their county clerks on conducting a RCV election. The population categories are: fewer than 10,000 voters; 10,000-37,500; 37,500-250,000; and more than 250,000.
At least two of the counties must have at least 2,000 people or at least 2.5% of their total population who “speak English less than very well.” Also, at least two counties must have non-white populations of at least 2,000 people or 2.5% of their total population.

Rep. Emily Sirota, D-Denver, introduced the amendment, but she was quoted in a Colorado Public Radio story as saying “This amendment was worked out with several of our clerks to ensure that as new voting methods are implemented in different types of elections, we have a good amount of data to analyze to ensure we’re not undermining Colorado’s confidence in our elections.”

Under this amendment to SB 24-210, the communities would need to adopt RCV voluntarily, and critics say this means the Prop 131 system could technically be delayed indefinitely or even permanently if there aren’t enough willing participants. Groups including Prop 131 proponents and the League of Women Voters Colorado put pressure on Gov. Jared Polis to veto the entire bill because of the amendment, though he ultimately both signed the bill and endorsed Prop 131.

According to a letter delivered from League of Women Voters to Gov. Polis: “The amendment applies a convoluted, and perhaps unmeetable, set of terms and conditions which would indefinitely delay, and likely prevent, implementation.”

Interested readers can find the SB 24-210 approved amendment language on pages 35-37 of this linked bill.

Big Money vs. Entrenched Interests?

Kent Thiry, the former CEO of the kidney dialysis company DaVita, is widely considered the driving force and a large financial backer of Prop 131. He has also been a primary backer of other significant election-related initiatives, including Proposition 108 from 2016 (unaffiliated voters can vote in primary elections without affiliating) and Amendments X and Y (establishing the Independent Redistricting Commissions).

The proponent committee “Yes on 131” reported about $14,520,000 in total contributions as of Oct. 28, plus another $3,555,000 from Thiry along with another $200,000 from other sources came in after the report was filed, to push the total to around $18,227,000. Contributions to this committee from a dark-money organization (“dark money” means they don’t have to disclose individual donors) called Unite America totaled $5,780,000 as of Nov. 4, and Thiry is a co-chair of the board overseeing this organization. Thiry himself had personally contributed $5,988,612 as of Nov. 4. Ben Walton of the Walmart empire has contributed $2 million, and Wilmot Reed Hastings from Netflix donated a million dollars. Kathryn Murdoch of New York City, who’s married to the son of Fox News’ Rupert Murdoch per Colorado Politics, was in for $500,000.

Yes on 131 has also submitted several “major contributor” reports including about a half-million from Washington DC-based “Voters for the American Center,”$500,000 from California-based Chevron Corporation, $500,000 from the Colorado Chamber, $100,000 from Elon’s brother Kimbal, and several $5,000 or $10,000 contributions from individuals working for financial/management firms. New large contributions in its Oct. 15 report included $321,685 from Jeff Chambers of the California-based TA Associates Management, $321,685 from Ross Jones of the Massachusetts-based Berkshire Partners (another $125,000 from David Peeler of Berkshire came in on Oct. 16), and $250,000 from the Chicago-based Final-Five Fund.

As of Oct. 28, the anti-131 committee Voter Rights Colorado had reported total contributions of about $383,500, along with about $145,179 in newer contributions since the report for a total of about $528,679 as of Nov. 5. Top contributors to Voter Rights Colorado include about $95,674 from Denver-based Working Families Power, $70,000 from DC-based AFSCME, $50,000 from DC-based Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, $50,000 from National Education Association, $50,000 from New Era Colorado, and $25,000 from both Cobalt and Colorado Fund For Children And Public Education. Also, another anti-131 and seemingly conservative committee First Choice Counts reported $7,983 as of Oct. 28.

However, the two largest political parties in Colorado and at least one minor party have come out in opposition to the measure.

From an August 2024 Colorado Democratic Party ballot measure position release: “This measure is being promoted by millionaires who are looking to create an overly confusing election system where dark money would have an even bigger influence on our elections.”

From a May 2024 Colorado Republican Party email: “Even Democrats and other minor parties oppose eliminating the party system. Without it, the marketplace of ideas and party values vanish, leaving only wealthy candidates or those with substantial financial backing to succeed. This disenfranchises grassroots candidates and diminishes the role of party platforms.”

The Green Party of Colorado has also formally opposed 131, decrying the big money as did the Democrats and Republicans, but adding that they believe it would “drive smaller parties off the ballot.”

Proponent Campaign Website: https://yeson131.com/
One Opposition Campaign Website: https://www.firstchoicecounts.com/

Richard’s Take

Vote NO. Prop 131 is too extreme of a change to our well-established system, with many potential consequences the proponents won’t tell you about – and in my opinion many things proponents WILL tell you that are overstated or unproven. So, ask yourself – is this even the best alternative system out there? Chances are great that you never had a chance to weigh in, or even consider other systems – and neither did certain Colorado county clerks who would be asked to implement this new system. And in 2024, you’re being asked to approve a new ranked-choice system given ONLY ONE CHOICE OF SYSTEMS, without having had any input.

Here’s your chance to stand up to mega-millions-money being used to flood TV and social media with slick ads, and to stand for the millions of people statewide who were never asked until now if what’s in Prop 131 is really the election system they wanted. The more than $18 million they’ve taken in for campaign finance has got to be worth it for someone, yes?

If I could be granted a second wish out of this election cycle (yep, defeating 45 is wish #1), it’s that everyone would realize that we don’t need to change entire long-established systems just because some proposal is new or fresh or radical. Our election systems today work fine, and even though they don’t always produce the results everyone loves, results not everyone loves will happen under any new system. Remember, a ranked-choice election produced the scandal-ridden NYC Mayor Eric Adams. Alternative voting systems are just not some type of magical utopia. We’re still going to be dealing with flawed humans, big money, and powerful organizations whether they’re political parties or dark-money PACs.

Ranked-Choice: Think Twice, or At Least Once More

I’ve actually been through a ranked-choice election, the Boulder Mayor’s contest of 2023. I was not a ranked-choice believer heading into the election, but 2023 reinforced my ranked-choice atheism (no, not agnosticism, and I’m not afraid of burning in skepticism hell).

Winning candidates must reach a majority, but majorities under RCV can be manufactured. In 2023, the candidate who won finished a fairly distant second in first-choice votes, but won the election when second-choice votes came over from the third-place finisher. I hate to write this because I know and respect the current Mayor, but my definition of “mandate” does not include second-choice votes coming over from the third-place finisher.
It’s completely possible that all four of the candidates would get modest totals of first-choice votes. For example, let’s say the first round is 26% to 25% to 25% to 24%, and these voters don’t mark all four choices on their ballot. According to a guest opinion from Denver City Council member and long-time Denver journalist Kevin Flynn, when “exhausted ballots” are dropped from the tally, it’s possible that the winning candidate might not even get a majority of all ballots cast. For that reason, he said RCV is “a confusing and opaque way of reverting to the old plurality voting system.”
The system can be gamed. In 2023, an out-of-state political organization spent lots of money (for a local race) to tell Boulder voters to only vote for two of the four candidates, and leave the rest blank. Any notion that RCV voters of the future are always going to dutifully rank all four candidates is very quaint, especially as more partisan operatives realize that not casting a vote for candidates means those candidates can’t get a person’s positive vote in future rounds of tabulation.
Money will remain in politics. Advertising costs money, and advertising reaches voters – period. Please do not tell me that Kent Thiry will not spend oodles of money if he decides to run for statewide office, since he’s already spent oodles of money on 131 and previous other ballot measures. Please do not tell me that dark money will disappear from existence, even in primaries, given what happened in this year’s CD-2 State Board of Education Democratic primary race – by the way, the main conflict in this primary wasn’t Democratic vs. Republican partisanism, it was over charter schools.
Candidates and campaigns won’t automatically become namaste-nice just due to RCV. The out-of-state organization spending big money on our local relatively low-stakes 2023 race literally used images of the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on their mailer to tar and feather a moderate conservative candidate. Now, imagine a U.S. Congressional or Senatorial race with control of either chamber on the line – and you don’t really have to imagine if you just follow this year’s race between Yadira Caraveo and Gabe Evans in CD-8. And even if 131 passes, most of the rest of the nation will still work within a mostly two-party system so Colorado races could still be important to the DNC or RNC.
Instant Runoff Voting is a deceptive misnomer, in my opinion. It’s just not what I consider a runoff – all that happens is the digital system performs a bunch of calculations based on one-time voter choices, and it’s completely possible that voters’ second-third-fourth choices could be poorly informed guesses. Most voters are just not political geeks and won’t have the time to do real research on all the candidates. Voters will not get a second chance under IRV to re-evaluate the top two candidates like they do in a real runoff.

All-Party Primary: Some Parties Won’t Be Invited To The Party Anymore

I also don’t uncritically love the idea of an all-party primary, mostly for the following reasons:

It’s completely possible that some political parties will have no candidates advancing to the general election, and this might include major parties. Take our Boulder House District 10 for example – registered Republicans made up about 6% of the district in 2021. It’s not hard to imagine future HD10 general elections with two Democrats, two unaffiliated candidates, and zero Republicans.
There are readers who are probably saying “Great! No Republicans in HD10.” The problem is that 131 is a statewide ballot measure, and the possibility also exists that no Democrats would advance to the general in brighter-red districts.
Minor parties typically have far worse registration numbers than Republicans in HD10, and that’s generally true in most districts statewide. Finishing fourth in an all-party primary will be very difficult in many districts for minor-party candidates, and as noted above, the Green Party says minor parties will be “driven off the ballot.”
A dear friend of mine will tell me alternative voting systems deliver “more expressive” elections than first-past-the-post elections, and I think that’s a fair point, but why then does Prop 131 only allow voters one choice in the primary? Why couldn’t I vote for one Democrat but also say I’d like to see a minor-party or unaffiliated candidate have a chance?
Proponents of 131 are touting that the state legislature has gotten too partisan, but guess what? Voters get it, and they’ve been reacting to it in regular old primaries. Hard-leftists were defeated by more centrist candidates this year in HD4, HD6, and HD37, and farther-left candidates went down in SD18 and HD49. Republicans also defeated hardcore MAGAs Tina Peters and Ron Hanks in favor of more centrist statewide candidates in the 2022 primaries. It’s not always obvious how a person will govern until they govern, no matter the election system.
Proponents are also saying 131 will boost voter turnout, but I’ve seen this type of claim fall flat before. The first election with RCV in 2023 Boulder had virtually the same turnout as the 2021 election, despite proponents claiming the new system would improve turnout. I’ve learned from painful experience that voters just don’t tend to turn out in droves for June elections unless there’s a compelling reason. Statewide primary turnout was only 26% in 2024 although the highest-profile race was for the relatively low-profile CU Board of Regents, and it was still only 32% in 2022 when there were Democratic and Republican races for the U.S. Senate, and all unaffiliated voters could already vote.

Unaffiliated Candidates: Not a Monolith or Even a Party

It’s undeniably true that more voters are choosing to be unaffiliated, but unaffiliated candidates are an entirely different story. Ask yourself – what is the political issue platform of the “unaffiliated party?” Of course, there isn’t one, and trying to create this platform would be an absolute unwieldy mess because people choosing to be unaffiliated are so different.

Yes, I’ve read stuff from people who think AOC doesn’t go far enough to the left anymore!

There are some people who are unaffiliated because major parties don’t go far enough – they might be to the political right of Lauren Boebert or to the left of AOC. Some have to be unaffiliated because of their job, like journalists trying to maintain neutrality. Some want to stay away from the admittedly annoying endless stream of calls, texts, and emails they get from parties and their candidates. There’s the perception that unaffiliated voters are true centrists, but I’ve seen a number of reports suggesting that unaffiliated voters typically have a political leaning – like this one from Pew Research Center saying 81% of people self-describing as independent still lean Democratic or Republican.

Anecdotally, I know some people are unaffiliated because they want to feel freer to support the best candidate, regardless of their party. This leads to the point I’m really trying to get at in this section. It’s the responsibility of unaffiliated candidates to make themselves that best candidate.

With unaffiliated voter numbers steadily increasing, being an unaffiliated candidate will almost certainly be a good selling point at times – but they’ll still have to be qualified in some way, free of scandal, and able to run and fund a competitive campaign. In my opinion, nobody deserves a new system to make themselves competitive, especially if they’re not actually within striking distance of competitive to begin with. They’ll also need some type of power base because being unaffiliated sacrifices the person-power of major parties, and guess what, purists? That’s going to more likely than not mean big money in big races.

For those still reading, I hope I’ve given you enough reasons to at least question Prop 131. Remember – you don’t have to support this just because it’s the only new system on this year’s ballot. Proponents of 131 can raise another $18 million from out-of-state mega-corporate bazillionaires and try again, or someone else can come up with another idea that might be even better, or we can just leave things as is. Let’s respect the old carpenter’s adage of measuring twice and cutting once.