A question before voters in November would dramatically change how Massachusetts primary elections are held – eliminating the current party ballots and replacing them with an all-party election where the top two finishers would advance, regardless of their affiliation.
Question 3 advocates argue that all-party primaries would increase competitiveness and hold elected officials accountable for their actions, while opponents argue the initiative would just support the interests of the wealthy.
California, Washington and Alaska all have all-party primary systems.
Danielle Allen, chair of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, the committee behind Yes on 3, explained that all-party primaries help voters know their ballots cannot be taken for granted by political candidates.
“They get to make a decisive choice,” Allen said. “And because of that competition, elected officials have to listen to voters.”
According to Ballotpedia, Massachusetts ranks 45th out of 46 in competitiveness among states that held legislative elections between 2010-2016. Only Rhode Island had fewer competitive elections.
“We really don’t have a functioning democracy if we don’t have competition,” Allen said, adding whoever wins in the primary goes to the general election.
“Who do you want to have make the decisions: the small, wealthier, less diverse primary electorate, or the electorate in November that is really the whole people?,” said Allen arguing competitive elections force politicians to show their work.
“An election is a forcing mechanism to make sure that elected officials have to give an account of what they’ve done,” Allen said.
She also said that states with all-party primaries have highly contested races and a more diverse state legislature as a result.
But Evan Horowitz, the executive director at the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University, said the argument that Question 3 will lead to more competitive elections is missing some context.
“The key thing that’s impeding competitiveness in Massachusetts elections is the lack of people who want to run, and I don’t know that this solves that,” Horowitz said.
As for the argument that competitive elections will lead to a more diverse Legislature, Horowitz said that it greatly exaggerates the consequences of switching to all-party primaries.
“It’s way down the list of potential impacts, and not what voters should have front of mind when they’re voting,” Horowitz said.
Jesse Littlewood, Yes on 3’s campaign manager, said that all-party primaries increase voter choice and introduce more ideas and policies for Massachusetts residents to think about.
The argument is buttressed, he said, by the fact that 67% percent of Massachusetts voters are registered as unenrolled or independent, compared to 24% who sign up as Democrats and 8% who enroll is Republican.
“I’ve heard from voters that they are really frustrated with having to temporarily affiliate with a party that they don’t want to be a part of,” Littlewood said.
Horowitz said that he can see how Question 3 would be an attractive solution for independents and recreates a political lane that is narrowed by the current party primary system.
“For people who don’t feel bound to the left or the right, there is a distinct, potential advantage to Question 3,” Horowitz said.
In all-party primaries, Littlewood said candidates don’t need to have more money and resources to win because they are reaching out to a broader and more diverse electorate.
“It’s not just hammering a small group of people with ads and micro-targeting them,” Littlewood said. “You have a whole range of people that you’re running towards and that actually reduces the impact of fundraising advantages.”
“The insiders that are doing well by the system do not want to give up power and control,” Littlewood said.
Horowitz agreed.
“It is bad for parties,” Horowitz said. “It limits their ability to control the nomination process and the influence they have over the nomination process, so they lose a lot of power.”
Horowitz said that a good argument can be made about the risk of parties losing their influence.
“We rely on them for figuring out which candidates are noteworthy, reputable,” Horowitz said. “They play an important role.”
Unsurprisingly, both the Massachusetts Democratic and Republican parties oppose the initiative.
The No on 3 campaign includes the state Democratic committee and various organized labor and community organizations. Jordan Berg Powers, who chairs the campaign, used to be on the board for Partners in Democracy, an organization that helped launch the Yes campaign.
Berg Powers said that he became alarmed when he learned about why private equity was involved in the ballot initiative.
“I saw up close and personal how much private equity was pushing for this type of reform,” Berg Powers said, arguing this initiative would make it more difficult for regular people to run for elected office.
“Money in politics is already a problem,” Berg Powers said. “That could get worse.”
He said Question 3 would increase the barriers for people to run, thereby creating less competition.
“The No. 1 reason regular people do not run for office in this system is that it costs too much and it takes too much time,” Berg Powers said, adding a candidate now shows how viable they are based on how much money they have.
“So, you have a system where not only will it cost more, but we’re judging candidates by how much money they have or how much access to money they have,” Berg Powers said.
He said that he is worried about wealthy private equity individuals would lie to the public to get what they want.
“This is a classic grassroots versus money campaign,” Berg Powers said.
MassGOP chair Amy Carnevale said the Republican State Committee unanimously opposed the question.
“We are opposed because we think it is important to have two differing philosophies for the voters to choose from,” Carnevale said, adding parties play an important role in vetting and supporting candidates.
“That role would be significantly lessened if Question 3 were to pass,” she said.
Carnevale added that Question 3 is supported by “a collection of ultra-wealthy individuals” who she argues are hoping to get candidates elected who can represent their point of view.
“If individuals from private equity were to get behind a candidate and elevate that candidate, they could have much more influence under a top-two system than they could the current system where it’s really important that they go through the party,” Carnevale said.
MassDems chair Steve Kerrigan said in an email statement that all-party primaries would give more power to wealthy donors and corporate PACs and would punish working-class candidates, first-time candidates and candidates of color.
“We’ve watched this play out in California, and time and again we see less choice, more money. Massachusetts shouldn’t make the same mistake,” Kerrigan said, where a “jungle primary” earlier this year temporarily raised the prospects of two Republicans topping the ticket for governor in an overwhelming Democratic state.
At a recent Statehouse press conference, House Speaker Ron Mariano argued that all-party primaries are just a strategy to get more Republicans elected.
“They almost had two Republicans running for governor of California,” Mariano said. “They couldn’t do that on the regular ballot.”
Horowitz downplayed the concerns that Question 3 backers support an oligarchy.
“It’s just not the case that the supporters of Question 3 are motivated by a desire to increase the influence of the rich,” Horowitz said. “Yes, there are rich people supporting it, but that’s because passing a ballot question takes money and rich people have the money.”
Horowitz said that the main thing that should be on voter’s minds is whether they think it is better for the two most appealing candidates to face off in the primary or the general election.
“That’s the main impact Question 3 would have,” Horowitz said. “Is that a good or a bad idea?”
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.