There was concern among [League of Women Voters] board members that this change could lead to excessive politicking, such as increased political maneuvering for one seat versus the other. This could result in elections being less open and fair. If Ranked Choice Voting is ever adopted by the city, this would address concerns of the measure’s proponents by ensuring that candidates receive a higher percentage of the vote. Another solution would be to stagger the at-large seats in different election years.

-- League of Women Voters of Denver, from "Where the League Stands"

Measure 2G is a solution in search of a problem. This measure would make our local races more expensive, more complicated, and tilt the field toward big-money candidates over grassroots progressives. Denver’s elections work — we don’t need changes that make them less fair and more expensive. Vote NO on 2G to keep elections people-powered, not money-driven.

Denver currently elects 2 at-large councilmembers from a field, with the top-two vote getters winning (they win by a plurality of less than 50% when there are more than 2 candidates). ...I was one of your at-large councilmembers from 2011-23. In my experience, these races were generally positive. There was little reason to attack the candidate next to you in the debate when the voter in front of you might be planning to vote for them too. Voters didn’t have to decide between two qualified candidates, they could vote for both. It is very, very difficult to raise enough money to run a citywide race and reach a meaningful number of 400,000 registered voters. Mayoral races always have and always will attract the majority of political giving in a city election cycle. But with only one election, no run-off, it has been a little more achievable for scrappy, grassroots candidates to win the equivalent of a Mayoral race on a small fraction of the budget. For the past several decades, the overwhelming majority of at-large councilmembers elected have been women, who we know from national research and local experience have a harder time raising political dollars than men. 

There is nothing wrong with the idea of having two separate seats that both have to win by a majority. I’m voting no because of the real world effects: Denver doesn’t stagger elections like many cities with multiple seats representing the same geography. Candidates will gamify which seat to run for in the same cycle, which opponent they think they can beat. If a voter prefers the second candidate in Seat A over any candidate in Seat B, they will be out of luck. Races will become inordinately more expensive–yes, even if a candidate chooses public financing. Because they still have to raise funds to qualify for matching dollars, now in two elections instead of one. And Denver’s operating budget–the same one currently facing a $250 million shortfall–will have to divert more dollars to the Fair Election Fund to pay out significantly more for 4 elections worth of candidates (2 seats x 1 general + 1 runoff) than it does today for 1 field of candidates in 1 election.

[From Councilmember Kneich's 2025 Ballot Guide.]