Citizen Initiative 310, backed by a few Denver political reformers, will be on your Nov. 5 general election ballot.

It proposes a major overhaul of how Coloradans would vote in state and congressional elections — but not for local and presidential elections.

This reform is named ranked-choice voting (RCV). It is supported by the “Colorado Voters First” campaign. It is backed, most visibly, by Denver entrepreneur Kent Thiry, a self-described political centrist.

Thiry enlisted Denver’s top lobbying law firm, Brownstein, et. al., and prominent political strategist Curtis Hubbard to work out the legal language. More than 125,000 public signatures were collected to put ranked-choice voting on the November 2024 statewide ballot.

The “Colorado Voters First” campaign has raised nearly $3 million, including major gifts from Kathryn Murdoch of the famed Rupert Murdoch clan and from a member of the Sam Walton family, owners of Walmart.

Expect to see many television and internet ads and to get multiple postcards from this well-funded statewide campaign.

Thiry was the leading proponent in previous successful political reforms, such as allowing unaffiliated voters a chance to vote in political party primaries and creating an independent legislative redistricting commission. Both were adopted by the voters with widespread approval.

The campaign for ranked-choice voting this year will likely be harder fought and controversial and deserves to be rigorously debated.

RCV will end partisan primary elections and replace them with a so-called “jungle primary.” Up to four candidates will gain access to the general election ballot by collecting voter signatures. The individual voters can come from the Democratic or Republican parties, third parties, or be unaffiliated.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

California recently used this in a U.S. Senate election. It led to a general election where two Democrats ran against each other to determine the final winner.

But the biggest “innovation” in ranked-choice voting is it calls for voters to rank up to four candidates by preference — 1, 2, 3, or 4. Voters do not have to rank their choices, but they are encouraged to do so since their second, third and fourth choices may make a difference in who wins the election.

Maine and Alaska are currently using ranked-choice voting, though there is a major movement to repeal it in Alaska.

Aspen and Basalt are two cities here in Colorado that briefly used it yet quickly repealed it.

RCV is used in Broomfield and Fort Collins and for the mayor’s race in Boulder. Elsewhere, it is used in a few dozen cities and counties in the United States, mostly in liberal locations such as New York City, Ann Arbor in Michigan, Santa Fe and San Francisco.

Proponents contend ranked-choice voting will modernize Colorado statewide elections to allow more choices, to encourage more civility and to advantage centrists and moderates over far left-wing and far right-wing zealots. These goals will be applauded by many voters

But these reforms are complicated, sweeping and raise a lot of questions. As far as we can understand it, here is how it might work:

First, existing political party primaries, Democratic and Republican, would be abolished. Instead, there would be a “jungle” primary of up to four people who obtained the most signatures to qualify to get on the ballot.

And in highly Democratic voting districts, it may turn out three or even four of the qualifying candidates might be registered Democrats. The reverse would be true in Republican-voting districts. On the other hand, some unaffiliated independents might also qualify as candidates in the general election.

Then, in the general election, voters will have the option of ranking up to four candidates. For example:

1. Thomas Edison           40%
2. Steve Jobs                 30%
3. Oprah Winfrey            20%
4. Taylor Swift                10%

If Thomas Edison does not win by 50% or more, then an “instant runoff” is tabulated. Taylor Swift, who finished fourth, is eliminated and her second choice (and lower) votes are distributed to the three remaining candidates. This process continues until one of the candidates gets more than 50% of the vote and is elected.

Do you follow all this?

Note you are not required to rank your choices. That is just an option. In locations that use RCV, at least 70% of voters choose to rank the candidates.

Proponents of ranked-choice voting tout their system will incentivize more civil and more issue-oriented elections because front runners in the public opinion polls will want to cultivate picking up second-choice, third-choice and fourth-choice votes.

Opponents of ranked-choice voting, calling themselves “Voters Rights Colorado,” are at present weakly organized and have raised little money. But many political party leaders and election officials can be expected to oppose this ambitious electoral system.

Opponents understand political parties are in disfavor and in decline, but they still believe parties play an important role in developing issues, vetting candidates and getting out the vote.

Opponents also believe this reform is too confusing. It may lead, as it has in some places, to the most popular candidate losing and a third-place candidate winning. It also, people fear, leads to gaming strategies to undermine front runners.

This new system would require voters who take things seriously to do much more research about the candidates in order to carefully rank each of them. That could be a good thing, yet the extra work may discourage many voters from voting.

This new method would not be used in local elections or presidential elections. Colorado U.S. Sen. Michael Bennett has sponsored legislation for RCV to apply in presidential elections. Some “good government” groups favor it, and thus many proselytizing advocates for it can be found on the internet.

These reformers say both of the existing major political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, have moved too far to the extremes. Their negative smearing of each other is encouraged by our current voting system.

They also say independent voters are getting squeezed out even as independents and centrists are now the majority in many places.

Our own view is most Coloradans, though not happy with the existing two-party system, are not ready to accept the reforms proposed in Initiative 310. They will likely believe it is too confusing and will not be convinced this “magic bullet” electoral reform, backed mostly by a few very wealthy people, is the right way to proceed.

We believe, along with a few state legislators, this ambitious new nominating and voting reform should be more extensively tested in the laboratory of city and county elections in Colorado rather than tried so soon statewide.

Here are some key questions to be tested:

1. Do these procedures clearly encourage more civility and moderation?

2. Do these procedures encourage more participation, and more trust, in our election system?

3. How do people feel when second- and third-choice votes determine the election winner?

4. How will people feel when they determine, from their point of view, their vote did not count?

5. Will this system advantage wealthy candidates who can pay for the signatures and advertising needed to secure nominations?

6. How will voters accept delays of up to a week before learning who won the election? This happened in the recent ranked-choice election for mayor in New York City.

7. How will voters react when this new nominating system mainly nominates candidates from only one of the two major political parties?

8. Is it fair for a voter’s second choice to essentially count as a first choice in the instant runoff process?

Experts agree there is no election system that’s perfectly fair, yet some, if not many, people would like an election system that would take a voter’s intensity of feeling into account.

A case can be made for modernizing our election procedures. For example, voting by mail was a welcome reform. Making voter registration easier also would be welcome.

Other needed reforms are better regulations on campaign spending and improving or eliminating the Electoral College. Would you rank ranked-choice voting your priority reform?

Most Colorado county election administrators are already on record opposing RCV. We can understand their fears.

Get ready for a major civics debate on Initiative 310. In the meantime, to our friend Curtis Hubbard, chief spokesperson for “Colorado Voters First,” can you provide a list of those who have donated $5,000 or more to this ambitious election law reform?

We also ask opponents of RCV for a list of their major contributors. Surely both campaigns will understand the need for transparency in an electoral campaign of this importance.

Tom Cronin and Bob Loevy are news columnists who write about Colorado and national politics.