Question 3 is bad for democracy
A review of what all-party primaries would do and who’s behind them
The current election system in Massachusetts is by no means perfect, or even good. Primary turnout is low, and many incumbents run unopposed. Despite one party consistently holding a supermajority, the legislature is one of the least transparent and least effective in the country, and attempts to audit it have been unsuccessful for years. So it’s understandable that Question 3, which promises election reform, is appealing to many. Question 3 proposes to replace the current partisan primary process with an all-party primary process where all candidates appear on the same ballot in September (voters can still only choose one), and the two candidates with the most votes advance to the general election in November.
However, Question 3 would not improve things. In fact, it would probably make things slightly worse. Evidence shows that the benefits of all-party primaries are small. Researchers have found that they slightly increase turnout, but are divided on whether that actually results in any policy changes. Some say it encourages more moderate policymaking, while others find it has little to no such effect.
Meanwhile, experience in California and Washington shows that, due to vote-splitting, all-party primaries can cause candidates from the minority party to win elections. For instance, in the 2016 Washington state treasurer election, most voters voted for Democrats, but because more Democrats ran than Republicans, only two Republicans advanced to the general election. To avoid this, parties are incentivized to influence candidates with less democratic means, like earlier this year, when Democratic party leadership urged weaker candidates to drop out of the California governor primary.
Question 3 is almost exclusively funded by executives and partners of private equity and venture capital firms. I believe they are investing in this question because they hope it will elect more business-friendly Democrats who support lower taxes on wealthy investors. Some may be donating out of genuine concern for democracy, but the fact that most did not donate to a similar voting reform question in 2020 — the ranked-choice voting question which, unlike this one, would have reduced vote-splitting — and that several donated against the millionaire tax question in 2022, suggests that at least some of them are more concerned with consolidating their own wealth.
The real solution to our governmental problems in Massachusetts is probably some combination of broader civic engagement, stronger transparency laws, independent redistricting, proportional representation, and ranked choice voting. Don’t let private equity and venture capital firms sell us this false solution — vote no on 3.
Justin Kunimune is a postdoc at the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center and a resident of Somerville.