The short answer is: it’s confusing and a little crazy. It will be like voting in two different elections for the primary and then another two different elections in the general election. 

Only about half of candidates are affected by 131 (US Senate, US House, all statewide races and state legislative races). In the primary, you would have one vote for each of those races regardless of affiliation. The other half of the primary ballot - district attorneys, countywide races, school boards and municipalities - you would vote either an R or D ballot as usual. Unaffiliated would continue be able to choose to vote in either Primary. Presidential primaries are held on a different day in Colorado, but would be conducted as usual.

For the general election, you would rank four votes in each of the federal and state races. For the second half of the ballot with US President and local races you would cast one vote in each race.

Confused? You’re not alone. That’s the way a lot of voters feel about ranked-choice voting.

Experience in other states shows grassroots and community-based candidates are commonly pushed out early in the primaries, leading to little meaningful choice in the general election.

Billionaires have been pushing this model across the country (this year in Colorado, Nevada, Idaho and Montana). They always promise that it will lead to less partisan polarization and more moderate candidates, but non-partisan studies say these are false promises and instead this model causes confusion and simply ensures the candidate with the most money wins. That's why big money is backing 131 in Colorado. It creates a “pay to play” system that favors well-funded candidates, rather than rewarding experience and ability.

Proposition 131 is being financed by Kent Thiry, a Colorado billionaire who has been twice indicted for Medicaid fraud and has a history of trying to buy elections in Colorado. In the June 2024 primary, he bankrolled $1.1 million in ads to support of his favorite candidates in an attempt to sway the races. Even if one thing or another in his proposal sounds appealing, we should say no to more money in politics.

Ranked choice voting ballot initiatives have far-reaching implications for our electoral system and democracy. Therefore, it's crucial that these initiatives be crafted by election experts who understand the intricacies of voting systems, rather than by billionaire businessmen with personal or political agendas. Election experts are better equipped to consider the long-term effects on voter behavior, equity, and the integrity of election outcomes. That would ensure any changes to how Coloradans vote are grounded in research, best practices, and the principles of fair representation, rather than influenced by those who may prioritize personal or financial interests over the public good.

In short, the proposition 131 campaign is full of false promises for a Trojan-horse-style RCV proposition that contains little policy based on expert or community input. In fact, Colorado’s election experts are pointing out red flags in the proposition and we should pay attention.

Yes, a non-partisan state analysis found that Proposition 131 will cost taxpayers at least $21 million more in the first 2-3 years if it passes.

Kent Thiry and backers of 131 didn’t bother to talk to the people who run elections in Colorado before he came up with this half-baked idea.

Colorado county clerks, who run elections across the state, have warned that Proposition 131 is a recipe for disaster because it changes nearly everything about the way we run elections, without adequate time to test the new systems or educate voters. 

Everything from the way we distribute and validate ballots to the way we count and verify votes, and even the way we protect election security will have to be redone from scratch on a strict and unrealistic timeline. When the people on the front lines of running our elections are warning this is a bad idea, we should listen. Proposition 131 just changes too much, too quickly and with too much risk of unintended consequences.

Other states have tried ranked choice voting and the problems they experienced are a warning about what could go wrong here in Colorado. In New York City, complications with the new system caused election administrators to mis-tally the votes and release incorrect results and it took two weeks to find out who won a congressional primary in Alaska. Colorado laws that allow 8 days after Election Day for military/overseas ballots and others to be returned means the results could be delayed could be even longer.