Colorado Voter Guide: 2024 General Election

Watch the full debate here.

The benefits and drawbacks of Proposition 131, which seeks to establish an all-candidate primary and ranked-choice voting system in Colorado, were discussed during a debate hosted by Colorado Politics, the Denver Gazette, and the University of the University of Denver’s Reiman Theatre on Thursday. 

The debate featured Kent Thiry and Nick Troiano of Unite America, the proponents who played a key role in getting the measure on the November ballot. Jason Lupo of First Choice Counts and Candice Stutzriem, of the Truth and Liberty Coalition argued against the proposition. 

Under Proposition 131, Colorado would shift from its current primary election system to an all-candidate primary. In this new system, the top four vote-getters, regardless of party, would move on to the general election, where voters would then rank them in order of preference. If a candidate receives 50% of first-preference votes, they win the race. If no candidate gets enough votes for the 50% threshold, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated in a mathematical process until one candidate has enough votes.  

If Proposition 131 is approved, it would apply to Colorado’s congressional races, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, state board of education, state board of regents, and state legislative contests starting in 2026. It would not apply to presidential or municipal races, such as county commissioners and district attorneys.

“People are losing faith in the democracy itself”: proponents say they have a solution   

Thiry and Troiano outlined their platform’s two guiding principles. The first is that every Colorado voter should be able to vote for whoever they want in an election funded by their taxes. An all-candidate primary would enable voters to cast “split-ticket” ballots, selecting candidates from multiple parties for different offices. According to Thiry, 52% of voters in Alaska voted split-ticket in the last election. 

“People are losing faith in the democracy itself,” Thiry said, noting that 50% of all Coloradans are unaffiliated with a political party and 85% of Gen Z voters say neither party has anything to offer them. Proposition 131 would give more Colorado voters a meaningful, highly consequential vote, which Thiry says only occurs about 10% of the time with the current system.

Thiry and Troiano’s second principle is that candidates should have to earn a majority of voters’ support, not a plurality. If Proposition 131 passes, general elections in Colorado would adopt a majority voting system, meaning a candidate must receive 50% or more of the vote to win. Under the current plurality system, a candidate only needs to receive the highest number of votes to win, even if it’s less than 50%.

Troiano acknowledged that while Proposition 131’s “isn’t perfect,” there really isn’t a system out there that is. 

“How’s the current solution working for us?” he asked, adding that open primaries and ranked-choice voting levels the playing field for independent and third party candidates. 

“The current system is flawed and the current system is failing us,” he added. 

Opponents argue “It’s not worth it to be this experiment”

Stutzriem cited Alaska as a cautionary example for Colorado if Proposition 131 were to pass. This election, Alaska voters will decide whether to repeal their ranked-choice voting system, established just four years ago.  

Having an all-candidate primary would eliminate the process of “winnowing down” candidates, Stutzriem said, leading to overcrowded primary elections similar to the 2022 Alaska election, which featured 48 candidates on the ballot. 

“It’s impossible to know who these people were or what they stood for, yet the voter was asked to make one choice,” she said. “You certainly may have a lot more choices, but with an endless list with no limits and no winnowing out, it’s almost an impossible vote. It’s an uneducated vote; it’s a shot in the dark”

Troiano countered that the ballot access requirements in Alaska are much less stringent than they would be in Colorado if Proposition 131 passes, making it unlikely that voters would ever encounter ballots with such a large number of candidates.    

Stutzriem also raised concerns about the proposition’s fiscal summary, claiming it overlooks additional expenses such training staff and educating voters on the new system. She pointed to an estimate from El Paso County Clerk Steve Schleiker who found that the proposition would cost about $21 million over the course of three years. 

Lupo argued that the other states that have implemented ranked-choice voting and open primaries, such as Maine and Alaska, have far smaller populations than Colorado. 

“This is an experiment that we’ve never done before at this size and scope,” he said. “It’s not worth it to be this experiment. I do not want to be a guinea pig. I do not want to be a rat.”

The argument that Colorado voters are leaving parties in droves is inaccurate, Lupo contended. While it is true that the number of unaffiliated voters in Colorado has increased significantly in recent years, this trend is most likely more due to the state’s automatic voter registration law implemented in 2020. Under the system, all voters are initially registered as unaffiliated by the Secretary of State’s Office. Although individuals have the option to switch to a party affiliation after being registered, many choose not to or don’t respond, which means they remain registered as unaffiliated.     

Dark money, caucuses, and financial viability 

A common criticism of all-party primaries and ranked-choice voting is that they open the doors for wealthy individuals and ideological PACs to “buy” elections. 

There is no evidence to support this claim, Troiano argued. In fact, he said, studies suggest that Proposition 131 could actually dilute the influence of PACs. He likened the current system to walking into a clothing store that only sells size XL and XS, arguing that Prop 131 would expand “the diversity of ideology on the general election ballot,” like offering a wider range of sizes in the store. 

Moreover, he argued, candidates in open primaries are “less vulnerable” toward interest group influence since they’re able to appeal to all voters for support, regardless of party affiliation. The wider pool of potential supporters would lessen candidates’ dependence on funding from interest groups, he said.

Thiry added that Proposition 131 would actually provide better opportunities for candidates with limited resources to perform better in elections, because voters might be more inclined to support less established candidates if they know they can also select safer, more recognizable options too.    

Lupo said Colorado elections are bought, not won, using this year’s primary as an example. He noted that Democratic Reps. Elisabeth Epps and Tim Hernandez of Denver, two of the most progressive members of the legislature, faced significant opposition from special interest groups. Their defeats to more moderate Democrat, he claimed, illustrate how PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations work to eliminate the most polarizing candidates. He cautioned that if Proposition 131 passes, these groups could have an even tighter grip on Colorado elections.    

Colorado’s unique caucus system was also brought up in the debate, as it could change significantly under a ranked-choice voting system. 

Colorado is one of the few states that still practices community-level caucuses, noted Stutzreim, describing the system as the “purest form of representation in government.”

“It’s the concept our founder’s had when they envisioned what a real representative government would look like,” she said of the state’s precinct caucus system, which she argued would be a thing of the past if Proposition 131 passes.  

Stutzreim alleged that Thiry and Troiano’s goal is to “eliminate all parties altogether” and promote centrism as the only option for voters. 

Thiry pushed back on this allegation, saying the proposition doesn’t do anything to change caucuses, but aims to address the limitations of the current system.   

Thiry said precinct caucuses can be extremely inaccessible, often held in remote locations at times that make it difficult for many working people to attend.

“It’s 37 people in a room determining who’s gonna represent 500,000 people,” he said, adding that legislators have approached him privately asking him to consider a future ballot initiative to eliminate caucuses.     

The financial impact of Proposition 131 was also discussed at length, as opponents have criticized its fiscal note for being inaccurate. 

According to Troiano, it’s estimated that the system will cost between $1 and $4 per voter per election. “It’s a tiny fraction of the state budget, but it very well impact the quality of investment of every other tax dollar we pay,” he said, adding that costs will lessen over time as the system becomes the new normal.     

Lupo challenged Troiano’s estimate, referencing Minneapolis, which reportedly spent around $17.50 per voter on educational materials when it implemented its ranked-choice voting system. Lupo argued that Proposition 131’s fiscal note is “practically non-existent” because the state won’t bear most of the costs related to its rollout, counties will.

“It was horribly written, horribly underestimated,” he said. “This is gonna cost taxpayers a lot of money.”

Thiry said the claims regarding the inaccuracy of the proposition’s fiscal note are unfounded, as 98% of Colorado’s counties already have the necessary software for ranked-choice voting. He pointed to his successful ballot initiative from 2016, which opened primary elections to unaffiliated voters, asserting that the fiscal note and cost estimates for that initiative were accurate, and he promised they would be this time, too. 

For more information about Proposition 131, click here.