Colorado’s political system symbolizes dysfunction, with a handful of party extremists on the left and right choosing marginal nominees with no appeal to voters who favor moderation. For the vast middle, our system is broken and needs to be fixed.

Ranked-choice voting, alas, is not the answer.

Proposition 131 asks voters to create a system to choose candidates for the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, CU board of regents, state board of education and the Colorado state Legislature.

Local and presidential races are not included, which means we would have two very different voting systems running concurrently.

If passed, 131 would allow voters to choose primary candidates regardless of the voter’s or candidate’s political affiliation.

In a crowded field — whether five candidates or many more — the four highest vote-getters would advance to the general. In the general, voters would rank the top four — one being the favored candidate and four being the least favored. The top vote-getter would assume office, if only with a plurality.

At first glance, this appears advantageous. If a voter’s top choice loses, the second, third or fourth selection might prevail. It eliminates the practice of corrupt party shills manipulating the caucus and assembly process to nominate only their hand-picked candidates for the open primary.

Scratch the surface of 131 and problems emerge.

Consider Colorado’s Republican Fifth Congressional District, which covers the Colorado Springs metro area. In a general election with two candidates — a Republican and Democrat — voters reliably elect Republicans. Likewise in Colorado’s 1st Congressional District — which covers Denver — where voters elect Democrats.

In these “safe” districts, majority sentiment determines a democratic outcome that typically comports with the values and demands of the district. Under ranked-choice, political extremists could put up a single far-left candidate in District 5 and clear the field of all others.

That would leave three right-leaning candidates dividing the votes in November of conservative voters, many of whom might not select second or third choices. That could elect a fringe left candidate who has little in common with the district, a problem made more likely by the legislative “fix” explained below.

The same dynamics could elect a far-right conservative Republican to represent Denver or Boulder. In either case, we would have skewed representation imposed by a minority.

For self-funding candidates, this would be a dream come true. For candidates who must raise funds — most candidates, by far — it becomes a financial nightmare.

In traditional two-candidate general elections, candidates spend on the registered voters most likely to vote for them. With ranked-choice, candidates must also campaign to those who might rank them second, third or fourth. That raises costs substantially, benefiting self-funders who can reach out to everyone when none of their competitors can.

Another kink involves those who rank a candidate first and fourth, while not ranking second and third. In that case, the fourth choice becomes the voter’s second choice — even though that wasn’t the voter’s intent.

It gets worse. By no fault of those proposing 131, the Democrat-controlled legislature hobbled it. Senate Bill 210, a convoluted word salad almost impossible to decipher, creates what could be a years-long “pilot program” before implementing the ranking element.

The pilot program “allows the county clerk and recorder or designated election official (clerk) of a county with at least 10,000 but fewer than 37,500 active electors and with at least 3 cities or towns where the second and third largest cities or towns that are located entirely within the county both have less than 3% of the active electors in the county, to request a waiver of the requirement to designate 3 voter service and polling centers (VSPC) on election day and instead designate at least 2 VSPCs on election day…,” and other such blather designed to aggravate complication.

No matter how one looks at 131, its complexity would undemocratically benefit those who excel at political maneuvering shenanigans. In that sense, it exacerbates a problem we already have.

Research by the Ivy League’s University of Pennsylvania found ballots cast in ranked-choice elections are 10 times more likely to be invalidated for mistakes voters never learn about.

Indeed, we must improve Colorado’s elections. We might look to nonpartisan primaries and runoffs — the way Colorado Springs and Denver elect their mayors. For a statewide example, we could look to Louisiana — where a nonpartisan “jungle primary” allows voters to choose any candidate regardless of party affiliation. Sans a majority for one candidate, the two highest vote-getters go to a runoff.

Colorado’s defective political parties have created problems the rest of us must fix. We must get it right the first time. Ranked-choice voting, sadly, isn’t the answer.

The Gazette Editorial Board