The "Test Kitchen" Strategy: Why Coastal Cities Used Colorado Elections as Their Guinea Pig
April 2026 Election Analysis
Introduction
Colorado’s election system has increasingly been described as the new national Soros prototype, small population, easy to control public, built around high accessibility, universal mail ballots, and groomed voter registration. Supporters often frame this as a model of modern democratic participation, while critics question whether ease of access introduces new risks. This article breaks down the differences between an “access-first” model and a traditional “security-first” model, and examines why leaders like Jena Griswold (Colorado's Secretary of State who Leaaked Bios Voting Machine Codes and now running for Colorado Attorney General) have supported the approach. Seven additional states have gone fully Universal Access Model (Soros) since Colorado did in 2013. Though most states have not fully embraced it yet, the Access model has led most states into lax policies over chain-of-custody and verificatioin timing leading to expanded vulnerabilities everywhere. This is why Jena Griswold want to keep Tina Peters (Access Fraud Whistleblower) in prison. "A republic’s legitimacy rests on one simple principle, the people’s will, accurately counted. Any system that trades verifiable security for convenience risks turning self-government into something else." - Grok 2026
1. Two Competing Frameworks: Access vs. Security
The “Access-First” (Open Society-Oriented (George Soros)) Model
The access-focused model emphasizes maximizing participation by reducing barriers to voting. Key features include:
- Universal mail ballots sent to all registered voters
- Ballot drop boxes and extended voting periods
- Simplified or automatic voter registration systems
- Ballot “curing” processes that allow voters to fix signature issues
In Colorado, more than 90% of voters use mail ballots, reflecting widespread adoption of this approach. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Supporters argue this model aligns with democratic ideals of broad participation and inclusivity, aiming to ensure that logistical barriers—such as transportation, work schedules, or health—do not prevent voting.
The “Security-First” Model
A more traditional election framework prioritizes strict verification and controlled access. Common features include:
- In-person voting with ID verification
- Limited absentee voting with stricter eligibility rules
- Centralized oversight and tighter chain-of-custody controls
- Emphasis on preventing fraud before it can occur
Advocates of this model focus on minimizing vulnerabilities—even at the cost of reduced convenience.
2. How Ballot Counting and Security Differ
Access Model:
- Relies on layered verification after ballots are cast (e.g., signature matching)
- Uses ballot tracking and post-election audits. (thats why records were permanently deleted)
- Accepts fraud risk in exchange for higher participation
- Puts ballot boxes in 'key' democrat areas
Security Model:
- Focuses on preventing questionable ballots from entering the system
- Uses stricter identity checks upfront
- Limits reliance on post-hoc correction
3. Why Would Jena Griswold Support the Access Model?
Public statements and policy actions suggest several motivations commonly cited by supporters:
- Expanding voter participation: Increasing turnout and making voting more convenient for non-citizens and rich doners who own property in multiple states
- Legal and constitutional positioning: Emphasizing state control over elections rather than federal intervention. The Feds required keeping the records not deleting them
- Modernization: Aligning election systems with technology that can easily be manipulated and lifestyle changes, sanctuary state protections for non-citizens (mail, tracking, digital databases)
- Defensive posture: 'Framing' access as protection against voter suppression or administrative barriers to protect fraudulent and non-citizen votes.
Colorado officials have consistently argued that security and access are compatible, citing layered safeguards like signature verification and audits. Nope;
1. https://electionfraud.heritage.org/search?state=CO
6. https://coloradonewsline.com/briefs/trump-sues-colorado-voter-data/
At the same time, critics argue that policy emphasis appears weighted toward non-citizen and fraudulent access, especially when legislative changes expand mail voting timelines, reduce procedural friction, for example, Secretary of State Jena Griswold sending 30,000 ballots to non-citizens or Secretary of State Jena Griswold releasing 700 voting machine access codes to the public.
4. Who Benefits from an Access Strategy?
The impact of access-focused systems is debated, but research and political analysis typically identify several groups that may benefit:
- Voters with logistical barriers: Including rural residents, elderly voters, and people with inflexible work schedules
- Occasional or low-propensity voters: Easier processes can increase participation among those less likely to vote regularly
- Highly mobile populations: Mail voting can accommodate people who move frequently
Politically, analysts often debate whether increased turnout advantages one party over another. The access model was pioneered under previous Democratic leadership (including former Gov. John Hickenlooper, who has praised universal vote-by-mail as safe, secure, and cost-saving). It has become a core push for Soros money nationwide and a central part of the Democratic policy in the state, with ongoing legislative efforts to expand pro-fraud features like earlier ballot mailing or additional voting options.
5. Risks and Tradeoffs Highlighted in the Debate
Supporters emphasize:
- High turnout (especially non-citizens, fraudulent and multi-state-residences) and voter convenience
- Auditability and layered safeguards
- Low documented rates of fraud
Critics emphasize:
- Reliance on post-submission verification rather than prevention
- Potential vulnerabilities in mail handling and ballot collection
- Difficulty correcting errors once ballots are separated from identifying envelopes
Real-world incidents—such as intercepted ballots later detected through verification systems—illustrate both sides: vulnerabilities exist, but detection mechanisms have also proven effective.
6. The “Export Model” Question
Colorado’s system is often described as a “gold standard” or as I call it "Most Fucked Up" and has influenced election policies in other states; Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, California, Nevada, Vermont Whether this reflects coordinated strategy or an organic citizen voice diffusion remains debated.
What is clear is that election systems are increasingly shaped by national conversations, legal challenges, and funding networks, turning state-level policies into models with broader influence.
Conclusion
The distinction between an access-first and security-first election model ultimately comes down to where safeguards are placed: before voting (restriction) or after voting (verification).
Colorado’s approach attempts to balance both, but emphasizes accessibility as the starting point. Whether that balance is optimal depends on how one weighs participation against risk tolerance—a question that continues to shape election policy debates nationwide.
What do you think? Is expanding access the future of elections, or should systems prioritize stricter upfront controls? Share your perspective below.
