First, an easy YES to Referred Question 2G on Denver’s municipal ballot. 

The case for 2G is in fact self-evident. At-large Denver City Council members aren’t elected the same way as other council members or, for that matter, any other city officials. Unlike in the races for those other elected posts, candidates for the council’s two at-large seats — which are supposed to represent the entire city — don’t need a majority vote to win office. Not even close. They often are elected with only a slim minority of total votes cast.

That’s because there’s only one race, and one election, for both at-large seats. All the contenders for both seats throw their hats in the same ring at the same time. The top two vote getters win the two seats in the first round of each Denver municipal election. And that’s that. That doesn’t make sense.

None of the 11 other council members, who all represent specific districts, nor citywide officials like mayor, are elected that way. Instead, a preliminary round of hopefuls is whittled down in the municipal election’s first round. If one candidate is able to garner a majority of the votes cast in that first round, then that candidate wins the office outright. But if none wins a majority, as is often the case, two finalists proceed to the city’s runoff election two months later. 

Either way, only a winner by majority wins the office.

2G would do the same for at-large seats. It would create separate “A” and “B” races for the two at-large council posts, and if a candidate for either race got a majority of votes cast in the first round, the candidate could claim that seat. If not, the two finalists would go to the runoff.

In principle, an elected official supposedly representing the interests of voters citywide should be able to claim the support of a voting majority. 2G would see to that.

The ballot proposal also actually would open the playing field to more contenders by splitting the race for the at-large seats into two, letting aspiring candidates size up which lineup of contenders offers a better opportunity for another challenger. 

Meanwhile, noisy but marginal candidates who somehow eke out a second-place finish in either A or B races under 2G — would have to prove their mettle in a head-to-head runoff with the other finalist.

2G makes perfect sense and is long over due.   

VOTE YES ON 2G on Denver’s ballot.

————————————————————————————————————

We also recommend voting YES to Referendum 310 on Denver’s ballot — banning the sale of flavored tobacco products in the city — but we do so with a sense of frustration. 

The Gazette’s editorial board unreservedly supports the ban itself. It was enacted nearly a year ago by the Denver City Council but challenged by some tobacco retailers, who managed to petition a reconsideration of the council’s ban onto this fall’s ballot. (Please note: A “yes” vote keeps the council’s ban in place; a “no” vote eliminates it.)

Fruit-flavored disposable nicotine vapes undeniably appeal to teens; all too easily wind up in their hands, and are just as easy to conceal and use discreetly. “Smokin’ in the boys’ room” has given way to vapin’ in the boys’ room, and it’s more insidious. Nicotine is a scourge; impressionable youth need thoughtful adults to help shield them from it.

We get the push-back from some small businesses that have grown to rely on tobacco sales for their bottom line. But as the outpouring of support for 310 from the public health community reminds us, protecting young people from addictive nicotine is a higher priority.

Our only qualification on our support is this: Why won’t Denver’s policymakers place that same priority on our children when it comes to even more dangerous recreational marijuana — also widely available in fetching, fruit-flavored, disposable vapes and edible gummies? And all of it,  easily accessible to kids.

That said, VOTE YES ON 310 on Denver’s ballot.