Advocates for opening up Colorado’s partisan primary process, rather than relying on precinct caucuses that were portrayed as a nasty reminder of smoke-filled rooms and insider influence, convinced a majority of Coloradans several years ago to let unaffiliated voters cast ballots in primary elections. This expansion of the nominating franchise was touted as a reform that could restrain ideological extremism and corrosive partisanship, while promoting small “d” democracy. It’s far too early to know whether this will prove to be true.

One positive result has been a significant increase in the number of candidates willing to launch campaigns in both parties. Races that would have attracted two or three aspirants in the past are generating a half dozen or more entrants. Opening up the selection process has put a far wider range of concerns into our political debate. This, of course, makes a thoughtful choice substantially more difficult for low-information voters.

A negative consequence, aggravated at least in part by the surprising success of Donald Trump’s raid on the Republican establishment, has been a perception that an eager outsider can readily overrun benighted partisan hacks.

Locally, election victories require preparation, a network of supporters and a knack for connecting with voters. These assets do not spontaneously materialize in response to the cutting-edge brilliance of a candidate’s platform or the passion and intensity that propels his or her proposed agenda. Several years ago, a friend asked me whether she should jump into a city council campaign that had already attracted eight competitors. She had no children, did not attend church regularly, was not active within her neighborhood association, nor had she ever been politically active. Although I was certain she would do an outstanding job, if elected, I posed the following question to her, “If you announce tomorrow, who, aside from your husband, will wake up the next morning asking themselves, ‘What can I do to help your campaign today’?” Commitment to and involvement with neighbors outweighs intellect or insight every time.

One worthy vestige from the bad old days is the vacancy committee. When a position goes vacant, particularly during a legislative session, voters should not be denied representation due to the long delay required to organize a special election. It is true that a mere handful of all voters, none of them unaffiliated, will make this selection. The precinct committeemen and women residing within the affected district make that decision. I was reminded of all this during the Democratic vacancy election last week that replaced departing state Sen. Lois Court.

Our politics have grown so fluid and unpredictable that few were certain whether state Rep. Chris Hansen, Court’s presumptive replacement, would prevail. Although Hansen has established a distinguished record for himself during his three years in the House, capped by selection to serve on the Joint Budget Committee, any result seemed possible. Hansen had already announced his intention to run for the Senate seat next November when Court was expected to leave. His announcement had not dissuaded a handful of additional entrants to the race. All were caught short by Court’s decision to depart because of health complications.

Hansen had several advantages going into this vacancy contest, most importantly his familiarity with the precinct committee people in his portion of the larger Senate district. But that alone would not have proven sufficient to assure majority support. He could also emphasize in phone calls with delegate that his experience at the Capitol would minimize disruption with legislative work already underway. Another vacancy election will now be required to fill Hansen’s House seat on Feb. 4. A handful of candidates have already declared their intention to submit their names in that vacancy election. It will be more likely to produce a surprise similar to Mike Johnston’s selection in 2009 to replace Senate President Peter Groff who had accepted an appointment with the Obama administration.

Many Democratic observers were encouraged that three of the four losing candidates placed climate change as the centerpiece to their nomination speeches. Hansen’s record has been solid on environmental issues and he captured 95 of 120 votes, avoiding any need for a runoff. With ever more virulent purity tests being applied to prospective candidates by zealots within both parties, it can only be a matter of time before insurgents demand abolition of the vacancy committee process in hopes of making these campaigns easier for outsiders to win. This reform would be another solution in search of a problem. It’s very likely both Hansen and his replacement will still face vigorous challengers in the 2020 primary in June.

District 31 delegates selected the candidate they felt most capable of representing them effectively. As a bonus they get someone who actually understands state budgeting. Not bad work for a bunch of hacks.

Miller Hudson is a public affairs consultant and a former state legislator. He can be reached at mnhwriter@msn.com.