As we know it, primary elections in Massachusetts go as follows:
Voters cast ballots marked either Democrat or Republican on top. People registered with one of those two main parties choose from the candidates listed on the corresponding ballot.
Or, if a voter is not enrolled in a party (commonly referred to as “independent”), or identifies with a third party like the Green party, they can choose either primary ballot and vote in that party’s race to help select its nominees for the general election that’s held about two months later.
In the general election, all voters get the same ballot and may vote for any candidate, including independent or third-party candidates who did not participate in a primary. The candidate who receives the most votes in the general election wins the office.
But, all that could change if Ballot Question 3 passes in this year’s general election.
Question 3 would eliminate political party primaries for Massachusetts state elections. Instead, there would be a single, all-party primary in which all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, would be listed on one ballot. Voters would be able to vote for any candidate on the ballot. The two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary, regardless of party, would advance to the general election ballot. This could mean two Democrats, or two Republicans, or any other combination, would battle it out in the general election.
One reason for the proposed change is that Massachusetts has one of the highest rates of uncontested elections in the country.
This general election is the fifth in a row when our local representatives, Rep. Michelle Ciccolo, Sen. Cindy Friedman, and Rep. Ken Gordon, are running unopposed. It’s the sixth in a row when Sen. Mike Barrett is running unopposed. Barrett’s first stint as a state senator ran from 1978 to 1995. He ran for reelection in 2012, won, and has retained his seat since.
Jesse Littlewood, a campaign manager for the Coalition for Healthy Democracy (the ballot committee advocating for people to vote “yes” on Question 3), argued that if the question passes, more people could be incentivised to run, which could create more competition.
“When there is competition [in Massachusetts], it usually is only in the party primary system, which means when there’s competition for elected officials who are running to represent all of us, the decision about who gets elected is made by a very small slice of voters (because voter turnout at primary elections is historically low),” Littlewood said. “Question 3 would move the decisive election from that primary to the general election when instead of one out of five, more of us turn out to vote.”
Littlewood argued that if competition increases, legislators could feel more incentivized to do a better job so they’ll be reelected in the future. And, if legislators do a better job, the notoriously unproductive Massachusetts state legislature could get more done, he argued.
“Even if a challenger doesn’t succeed an incumbent, an incumbent will have had to campaign, they will have actually had to come out, talk to voters, hear their concerns, and feel the heat that they may not be reelected unless they make more progress,” Littlewood said. “That’s an incentive system, an incentive structure shift, that, I believe, will help make more progress happen. Without it, we’ll see a continued history of the legislature ignoring or overturning what people have wanted to do.”
Sen. Cindy Friedman, who represents Middlesex County’s fourth district, which includes Arlington, Billerica, Burlington, Woburn, and most of Lexington, does not see how all-party primaries would increase competition. She noted that a person only needs to get a few hundred signatures to run, arguing the bar to run for office is already low.
“If you want to run, then run. If you want to get on the ballot, get on the ballot. But nobody wants to run because everybody’s so busy, they don’t even pay attention to elections, they’re told constantly that the government doesn’t work, and the legislature’s bad, and we’re all corrupt,” she said. “And the pressure once you’re an elected official is intense, you’ve got to be willing to put up with an enormous amount of vitriol and upset. People just don’t want to do that.”
Friedman voted “no” on Question 3.
Rep. Ken Gordon, who represents Bedford, Burlington, Lexington’s Precinct 6, and Waltham’s Precinct 3, made a similar argument to Friedman’s, saying he does not see how Question 3 passing would incentivize more people to run.
Gordon also does not think Question 3 passing will affect how he campaigns in the future, even if more people ran for open seats as a result. This year, he and the other candidates running have not done much direct campaigning, like door knocking or making lawn signs. Gordon argued he campaigns by doing his job everyday.
“We show up for our constituents, we do our job, we do a good job, so at the end of the two years, if someone looks to decide, ‘am I going to run against that sitting state rep?’ And if they think, ‘well, you know what? If I can’t formulate an argument as to why that person is doing a bad job, then it’s unlikely then I’m going to win that election,’” he theorized. “I think that’s one reason why there aren’t more contested elections — it’s not that the system needs to change.”
Gordon voted early this year and checked “no” on Question 3 because he worries it could actually be less representative in some situations.
For example, if most people in a district are Democrats, and the all-party primary ballot lists two Republicans and five Democrats, the five Democrats could all split the Democratic vote and the Republicans would win. That could give the two Republicans the two spots in the general election — even in a predominantly Democratic district.
Gordon also suggests that the all-party primary system leaves room for manipulation. For example, one side could encourage more candidates to run on the other side in order to split the vote.
“We live in a time where — and we’re seeing it on the federal government side where Trump has already instructed his justice department to interfere in Alaska — I would not put it past certain interests to figure out a way to legally affect the outcome of an election, and that would be a legal way to do it,” he said.
Friedman made another argument against Question 3, saying she is skeptical of the initiative because it is funded by people associated with some deep-pocketed companies like Bain Capital. She worries the issue of money in politics could only amplify as a result of Question 3 passing.
“What will happen is that people with money will get in early and there’ll be pressure on others to drop out,” she argued.
Peter Levine, the associate dean at Tufts University’s Tisch College of Civic Life, thinks the concern about money in politics is valid but should be addressed separately.
“Anytime there’s an election with any stakes in America, money comes in. So if we have more elections that are contested, we’re going to see more money,” he said. “The problem, which is that we’re not really having elections at all because we have [a large percentage] of people just automatically reelected, means not much money comes in. But that’s a pretty bad reason [to vote “no” on Question 3]. You want competition and then you have to try to fix money in politics.”
Littlewood thinks Question 3 could help the issue of money in politics. He explained that if Question 3 passes, there will be more information about candidates on ballots. In addition to seeing under which party a candidate is registered to vote, voters will be able to see what parties, major or minor, endorse a candidate on the ballot.
“The benefit there isn’t just that voters get more information, which is huge, but also, it levels the playing field,” he argued. “Some candidates and groups can afford to pay for a mailer to all the registered voters in their district and some can’t, but this puts all that information right there in front of voters.”
Freidman hopes voters look a bit deeper into Question 3 — and all ballot questions — before casting their vote.
“The problem that we face with these kinds of ballot initiatives is that there’s no nuance or understanding,” she said. “Many people are very upset and scared, so when they hear a quick narrative, like, ‘[elections are] not competitive and this will make them competitive,’ they don’t go much beyond that because we don’t have the time to look at these ballot initiatives or look at language in a bill and make sense of it. And the people who are behind these kinds of ballot initiatives are depending on that inability to do a deeper dive.”
LexObserver reached out to Rep. Ciccolo and Sen. Barrett for comment on Question 3 but did not hear back in time for publication.
The general election is scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 3.