Business and civic leader Kent Thiry is a complex figure. He built Denver-based DaVita to be a behemoth in the world of kidney care and dialysis. Along the way, he was known for some wild, over-the-top gatherings in the name of team-building.

Under his leadership, the company paid major sums to settle claims of fraudulent billing and illegal kickbacks. Three years ago, a federal jury acquitted Thiry of charges of collusion in violation of antitrust laws.

Despite an egocentric manner and some dubious company practices, Forbes magazine called Thiry a “Hall of Fame CEO.” Colorado Gov. Jared Polis bestowed on Thiry the Governor’s Citizenship Medal for Growth and Innovation.

Now, if you think the point of this column is to rip Thiry, you are mistaken. While our styles are quite different (to say nothing of our bank accounts), Thiry is one of the more unique, independent, free-thinking individuals in Colorado and beyond. Moreover, he has the wallet to put his ideas into action and often bring them to fruition.

On a national scale, Thiry co-chairs the board of Unite America which operates under the banner of, “Country over party.” Two thumbs up to that mission.

Within Colorado, Thiry spearheaded and bankrolled a 2016 campaign to pass Propositions 107 and 108, which instituted presidential primary elections and opened all primaries to unaffiliated voters, now more than half of the state’s electorate.

Two years later, he similarly sponsored Amendments Y and Z, which changed the redistricting process for congressional and state legislative seats.

Voters approved both of those latter two measures by margins of over 70%. Despite some tepid, impractical talk of repealing Amendment Y to empower local Democrats to rig an extra congressional seat or two to counter Republican mischief in Texas and elsewhere, voters, if called upon, would overwhelmingly affirm their support for Thiry’s nonpartisan process.

Which brings us to Thiry’s singular defeat at the Colorado ballot box. Voters a year ago turned down Proposition 131, which sought to institute an electoral system of a single, all-comers primary with the top four finishers advancing to the general election to be decided by ranked-choice voting.

In the end, this was too much and too complicated. While I have been intrigued with ranked-choice voting as a partial remedy for growing extremism on both sides, I now regard that as a longer-term pursuit and not worth the short-term fight.

Befitting his personality, Thiry is not used to losing. It stings. But that does not mean it is time to give up the fight. He and his team had their fingers on the right problem even if voters regarded the proposed fix as overly convoluted.

California and Washington state employ a “top two” process, whereby all candidates for a given office run in a single, non-partisan primary election. The two candidates with the highest number of votes, regardless of party, then move on to the November election. Nebraska, Louisiana and Alaska all have some variation on this system.

Colorado is ripe for such a proposal. Both parties would fight it – which only speaks to its appeal and beneficial potential. Over the long haul, its effect would be to move politics away from the hard Republican right and the extreme Democratic left.

In a solidly blue district, both top two finishers might well be Democrats. But instead of the general election being a walkover against some token Republican, and instead of Republicans and independent voters being largely disenfranchised, they could well exert the balance of power and tip the scales to the more moderate of the two Democratic contenders.

The inverse would be equally true in deeply red Republican districts. Moreover, it would afford unaffiliated candidates a real chance.

Indicative of our brokenness, too many districts are non-competitive and too many incentives bend the system in favor of the loudest, angriest, most out-there candidates. A top-two system could be a powerful corrective.

For Kent Thiry: Please lick your wounds from last year and get back in the game. This is a far simpler, more palatable answer. Colorado is ready and waiting.

A postscript: This summer, I wrote a piece calling on Sen. John Hickenlooper and Rep. Diana DeGette to step aside in favor of newer, fresher talent. That column elicited more reaction, overwhelmingly in agreement, than anything I have written for these pages in six years.

Suffice that say that neither Hickenlooper nor DeGette heeded my call. Shocker.

Though now we have news that DeGette, indeed, has a Democratic opponent, none other than CU Regent and marijuana mucky-muck, Wanda James, fresh off an official censure by her fellow Regents, including two other Democrats. The censure, with only one precedent in the university’s history, centered on James’ conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duty.

DeGette deserves a challenger but Denver does not deserve Wanda James. But here we are with a 30-year incumbent, tired, spent and past her sell-by date running against a self-promoting huckster and instigator just sanctioned by her peers.

Some choice. Denver Democrats, you got anyone else?