[Editor’s note: In the interest of educating the public, EastBoston.com has opened up its pages to supporters of all candidates and the nine ballot questions before voters. If you have an article relevant to the upcoming election, contact editor@eastboston.com]
Voters in Massachusetts and across the country are in broad agreement that our political system is dysfunctional, and that the way we elect political candidates is a big part of that dysfunction. The political parties that run the primary election system are not, it seems, sending us their best.
Voter satisfaction with the Democratic and Republican parties has been declining for decades. This is reflected in declining party registration. Between 2006 and 2026, the proportion of Bay State voters registering as Democratic, has decreased from 36.9% to 24%, and Republican has decreased from 12.5% to 8%, while Unenrolled has increased from 49.8% to 67%.
Taking the primary election process out of the hands of the political parties is a good idea whose time has come. But no idea is so good that it can’t be destroyed by a sufficiently bad idea. In this case it is an open primary with plurality, or first past the post voting, combined with a top-two final. The evidence shows that this will further entrench the two decaying parties and make them even less responsive to voters.
What Question 3 actually does
Question 3 would eliminate separate party primaries in Massachusetts. All candidates for an office, regardless of party, would appear on one ballot in a single open primary. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the November general election. It applies to state elections, not the presidency, and would not take effect until January 1, 2028.
The measure would also change how a political party earns official recognition. Currently a party qualifies by winning at least 3% of the vote for a statewide office in the general election. Under Question 3, that threshold moves earlier, to 3% of the vote in the new all-party primary itself.
The case for it: breaking party control
Democrats and Republicans who buck their leadership and try to be reformers are often shut out of the primary process by the party machine. Opening up the primary to let the voters decide who they want, taking it out of the party leaders’ hands is a genuinely good idea. It has the potential to introduce more intra-party competition in a state where the winning the primary is tantamount to winning the election. We can imagine voters might get to choose between two Democrats, one an ossified party hack who is advanced by leadership, and the other a reformer who could advocate for what the voters need, not what the party needs.
The case against it: one-party locks, the spoiler problem, and dead third parties
In heavily lopsided districts, the top-two candidates will often both be Democrats. We have seen this in California, where all the pathologies of unchecked, one-party rule are playing out, and people are leaving the state in droves. In a crowded field, the top two together might get less than 40% of the vote, meaning that more than 60% of voters in the final wanted to see someone else.
It didn’t have to be this way.
In 2020, Massachusetts narrowly rejected Question 2 which would have introduced ranked choice voting (RCV). This is real electoral reform. It was favored by a landslide in Cambridge because it is similar to how they elect their City Council, but simpler. Voters simply rank candidates 1, 2, 3, etc. The candidate with the fewest #1 votes is eliminated, and those voters get moved to their #2 choice. The bottom candidate is again eliminated, and those voters get their next choice, until a candidate has more than 50% support, and is the winner. This is done in Alaska and Maine already, with slight variations.
RCV solves the spoiler, or “wasted vote” problem.
Today, someone who wants to vote for the Green, but whose second choice is the Democrat has an incentive to falsify their preference for fear of “spoiling” a close election and the Green is perceived as a long shot. When voters are incentivized to support someone they prefer less, that is who they elect. It is a formula for ever less preferable candidates. A race to the bottom.
This is the most nefarious aspect of “jungle primaries” with a top-two final. The top-two final hides the spoiler problem in the primary. There can’t be a spoiler in a top-two election. Anyone who might be a spoiler is eliminated from consideration. This keeps inconvenient voices out of the political debate in the final election. It puts a draconian limit on voter expression and candidate diversity.
This is what happened in California. Their top-two open primary has banished independent and minor party candidates, like the Libertarians and Greens, from general-election ballots entirely. A review of top-two races in California, Louisiana, and Washington (where open top-two primaries are held) found minor-party candidates blocked from the general in every instance studied whenever at least two major-party candidates ran.
Political parties gain recognition in Massachusetts by getting 3% in a statewide election. Massachusetts Voters enacted this through the Fair Ballot Access Initiative, Question 4 in 1990. Currently that 3% threshold is in the final election. Getting 3% of a crowded open primary is a much higher bar, and would all but close that path, especially since plurality voting in a single combined primary creates a strong incentive for a minor-party voter to abandon their true preference and vote strategically for a preferred major-party candidate, since there’s no ranked-choice mechanism to let a first-choice vote for a minor candidate transfer safely. That siphons off exactly the votes a minor party would need to hit 3% and keep official recognition.
Electoral Reform Theater Will Poison the Well for Real Reform
Question 3 ultimately offers the voters of Massachusetts electoral reform theater. It creates the illusion of giving the voters more choices, and decreasing major party influence, while actually eliminating the competition from independent, third, and often even second parties. For Bay State voters who are feeling remorse for dropping the ball and not enacting RCV in 2020, Question 3 might seem like an opportunity to fix that, but it will just poison the well for genuine reform, such as that advocated by Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter in their book, The Politics Industry. They favor an open, non-partisan primary where the top 5 go to an RCV final. The ranked-choice general lets a voter rank a minor-party candidate first without wasting their vote, since it transfers to their next choice if that candidate is eliminated, and the wider field of five gives an independent or minor-party candidate realistic room to survive into the general.
Vote NO on Question 3
It is tempting to think that some electoral reform is better than none at all. But the wrong reform, such as what Question 3 offers, is truly worse than nothing. The proof is in the pudding. California’s top-two open primary system has created arguably the most politically dysfunctional state in the nation, with has some of the least satisfied voters. They give their legislature a net negative approval rating (45% approve, 52% disapprove, 3% don’t know, net: -7%). At last count in 2024, the Massachusetts legislature was net positive (51% approve, 33% disapprove, 16% don’t know, net +18%).
The time when the major political parties are failing to deliver is not the time to entrench them further, and protect them from competing ideas. Vote NO on Question 3.
Peter Everett is the Chairman of the Liberty Alliance of Massachusetts (LAMA), the state affiliate of the Liberal Party USA. He worked on the Fair Ballot Access Initiative, passed by the voters as Question 4 in 1990, which was the last major election law reform in Massachusetts
