As a lifelong Coloradan, I’ve been proud to watch our state’s election system reform and grow into one of the strongest in the nation. However, Proposition 131 threatens to unravel that progress.

An expensive and confusing experiment, Prop 131 creates a hybrid jungle primary and ranked-choice voting system that only applies to about half of Colorado’s candidates while giving special interests more opportunities to influence primary outcomes. In short, it is a solution in search of a problem.

Colorado’s voter turnout has ranked among the highest in the country — including significantly exceeding the national turnout for young voters. Our state also has the ability for unaffiliated voters to participate in primaries, multilingual ballot access and an expansive number of ballot drop-boxes and voting centers. Since Colorado passed major election reforms in 2013, we have consistently remained one of the top states in turnout for more than a decade. Why would we risk a system that works so well for one that could sow confusion?

One of the dangers of this initiative is its complexity. Studies have shown when voters are confronted with confusing and complicated ballots, many simply don’t vote. In places like New York City and Maine, where ranked-choice voting has been implemented, there has been an uptick in ballot errors, leading to disqualified votes and voter frustration. It is also especially burdensome for marginalized and minority communities, who may already face barriers to voting.

Additionally, Prop 131 would apply only to certain races, like those for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, statewide offices and legislative races, while leaving out other important contests. Presidential elections and local offices, such as district attorneys, countywide offices, city councils and school boards, would be elected under the current system. This inconsistency will only create further confusion for voters, hurting our voter participation and disenfranchising the very people we have worked so hard to bring into the democratic process.

Prop 131 would also open the door to manipulation. Ranked-choice voting can be exploited by wealthier candidates with greater resources to game the system. This creates an environment where candidates with more money can more easily influence voters by strategically targeting their messaging to ensure they pick up the second- or third-choice votes, while grassroots and underfunded candidates may struggle to compete.

The system also lends itself to confusion when results are delayed or outcomes appear unpredictable. In Alaska’s recent special election using ranked-choice voting, voters waited weeks before knowing the results, raising questions about the transparency and reliability of the process.

In fact, Prop 131 would change virtually all the processes and technology from our current system, costing taxpayers an estimated $21 million in the first three years. This would raise filing feeds for Colorado businesses — otherwise, lawmakers would have to find money in the state budget.

The Colorado County Clerks Association has already raised red flags about whether this system can be implemented within the two-year deadline for Prop 131. They’ve warned it would be a disaster if it is rushed.

At a time when election deniers are spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation to undermine trust in our elections, the last thing Colorado needs is a system that casts even more doubt on the results. Prop 131 would be a step in the wrong direction, and we must reject it to protect the integrity of our elections.

Diana DeGette, D-Denver, represents Colorado’s First Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.