The Green Party of Colorado denounced a ballot initiative last week that seeks to implement a form of ranked-choice voting combined with an all-candidates nonpartisan primary across the state, warning that the measure would instead “reduce democracy” if passed.
In a press release on Friday, the party announced its opposition to Initiative 310, a voter reform measure that recently qualified for the Colorado ballot later this year. While typically supportive of ranked-choice voting, the party argues that the initiative would limit voter choice and increase the influence of big money in politics. More specifically, it claims the measure would restrict voter representation, increase vote-splitting, and eliminate general election write-in voting—ultimately benefiting wealthy interests at the expense of broader voter inclusion.
Party leadership further asserts that Initiative 310’s design, which they believe hijacks support for ranked-choice voting by pairing it with a less democratic “jungle” primary system, undermines genuine electoral reform. They argue that true reform should involve the use of ranked-choice voting, but with proportional representation to ensure that more political viewpoints are represented in Colorado’s legislative bodies. The full press release shared with Independent Political Report can be read below:
August 29, 2024
In light of today’s announcement that Initiative 310 has qualified for the November ballot, we urge those in the press to put a spotlight on the impact this measure will have on minor parties in Colorado.
For Immediate Release:
Green Party of Colorado Opposes Initiative 310 Due to Top-Four PrimariesThe Green Party of Colorado (GPCO) believes democracy is enhanced when all voters have a real opportunity to elect public officials who reflect their views. Instead, Initiative 310 would reduce democracy in Colorado by reducing voter choice and increasing the influence of big money in politics. Therefore, the GPCO opposes Initiative 310 — and calls for its defeat on the November 2024 ballot.
“Initiative 310 would limit voter choice on the General Election ballot; increase ‘vote-splitting’ and random results in the primary; drive smaller parties off the ballot, eliminate general election write-in voting, and make primary elections more expensive – increasing the role of big money in our elections and further corrupting our democracy,” according to GPCO Co-chair Desmond Wallington.
“Therefore, it’s not surprising that big-moneyed interests are behind Initiative 310’s top four, ‘jungle’ primary, along with similar ballot measures in other states, at the cost of broader and deeper representation for regular voters.” says GPCO Co-chair Patrick Dillon.
“Most cynically, Initiative 310 hijacks a popular idea like Ranked Choice Voice (RCV) for general elections by attaching it to an anti-democratic, non-RCV system like ‘top four’, all-candidate ‘jungle’ primaries,” said Wallington.
“Initiative 310’s big money backers claim that by eliminating party primaries and weakening political parties, it empowers voters,“ says Dillon. “But this ‘anti-party narrative’ presumes without justification that the large number of non-affiliated Colorado voters means these voters reject political parties per se. The reality is that all voters deserve representation. But any system that elects our state and federal legislators from single-seat, winner-take-all districts (as under top four systems), means large number of voters in each legislative district will always go without representation by someone who shares their views, and many voters will feel there is no party with a chance of winning in single-seat, winner-take-all districts that represents them at all. That is the democratic deficit issue that must be addressed by real reform.”
“Instead of limiting voter choice via winner-take-all top four election, the GPCO supports a full range of parties with clearly defined platforms appearing on the general election ballot, that reflect the real diversity of political viewpoints within Colorado — and an electoral system that allows them all to run candidates and win legislative seats in proportion to their percentage of the popular vote,” says Wallington
“That’s why the GPCO supports using RCV to elect our state and federal representatives by proportional representation from multi-seat legislative districts; and for use in party primaries and general election elections to elect single-seat offices like governor and president, so that more voters have a say in who is the ultimate winner,” adds Dillon.
“Initiative 310 is the wrong response to Colorado’s lack of fuller representation for all voters. Greens reject Initiative 310’s false promise and call for real reform that gives all Colorado voters a seat at the table of our democracy,” says Wallington.
#####
The real problem with these top-x voting reforms is that deprive parties of the right to determine who may run on their own labels. Parties should have a veto over any candidate running with the label
Peter Camejo was the watermelon, Stein is a fascist supporting Russian hack. As a Green Party member when did Colorado even have a primary, caucus, convention or did they just meet at the coffee shop like the 4 people in Kansas they Stein won in a landslide?
The Watermelons are correct about 310, but for the wrong reasons.
Sure, a jungle primary and a “Top-X” general election are problems and should be vociferously opposed. Ask CA and WA how well that works to implement one-party (Democrat) rule.
But supporting RCV is just as bad, as it actually has now been to shown to not work as designed.
But in Colorado, the Watermelons are a distant fourth party, with activity only in the Denver-Boulder cesspoolplex. They’re desperate for relevancy, even more so after Colorado went over the Blue Cliffs of Insanity.
It should also be noted that the LP has long-opposed all primaries, including jungle primaries, and all Top-X schemes.