Photo by Manny Becerra on Unsplash
The Denver Post Editorial Board has issued an endorsement on Proposition 131 in Colorado, an initiative that calls for a nonpartisan top 4 open primary with ranked choice voting in the general election. They call for a "No" vote, but not because they reject the reforms.
In fact, in the first paragraph of the editorial, the paper writes:
"Colorado isn’t ready for major changes to our election system, even if adopting an all-party primary and ranked-choice general election could mean more and perhaps better choices for voters in future years."
Why does the Post think Colorado isn't ready for nonpartisan voting reform? Because of election conspiracy theorists that have popped up in the last few years to sow doubt on the integrity of elections.
"Tina Peters’ saga of dragging Colorado’s election system through the mud just came to an end this month when she was sentenced to nine years in jail and prison," the paper writes.
"And despite humiliating smack-downs in the legal system of other notorious election conspiracy theorists — Jenna Ellis, John Eastman and more — they and others continue to cast doubt on our election systems."
The concern is that the reforms proposed under Prop 131 will give the "Tina Peters" of the world an additional excuse to question the legitimacy of elections, particularly the results of a ranked choice election.
"Implementing this on a statewide basis will take money and time, including creating a way to perform a risk-limiting audit with independent software to make certain that the original tally is correct," the paper writes.
Keep in mind, two states have already done this and in the span of a single election cycle -- Maine and Alaska. As Colorado as stood out as a role model in election administration, it's hard to imagine the state is not up to the task.
The Post's concerns about election deniers are understandable, but in the current hyper-partisan political environment, it is a bell that cannot be un-rung. The Post holds on to hope that eventually election deniers will go away. They won't.
The only way to build confidence in elections again is to give voters a system where they can better ensure candidates on the partisan and ideological fringes are less likely to be put in positions of power and influence.
You know, the type of candidates that spread unfounded claims about elections to begin with.
ALSO READ: The Conversation on Election Integrity Neither Party Wants You to Hear
What better way to restore faith in elections than give voters a system that offers more choice and freedom of expression, which the Post acknowledges "are goals worth of pursuing."
As long as there is partisan control over the administration of elections and party control over primaries and voter options, the system in place will always open itself up to skepticism and mistrust -- because what matters most to the two major parties is winning.
Even if that means telling their members that the system has been rigged by "the other side." Ending party control over this process is the solution because it makes it harder to argue that the opposing side has stacked the deck in their favor.
When voters have the most control -- they have more reason to be confident in elections.
The biggest opposition to nonpartisan voting reform are the party bosses and special interest groups that benefit from the status quo. Naturally, they will try to foster doubt in the integrity of new election models.
Even if Colorado waited a decade, this wouldn't change. Because those in power will say and do what they need to preserve that power. But given how bad things are getting in the nation's politics, trust in elections is not likely to reverse its current negative trend without systemic reform.
There is also a contradiction in the Post's "No" endorsement. It says: "We’d need something closer to a super-majority vote than a mere 50% win this November to convince us Coloradans are ready to fight this election battle."
A supermajority vote isn't out of the question for Prop 131, especially when polling shows close to 60% of voters will or likely will vote "Yes." If the paper was sincere, why try to influence the vote at all? Let Coloradoans vote.
