Question 3State law · Citizen initiative
One primary for all candidates
Explain it like I'm 5
Instead of separate party tryouts, all candidates would run in one primary. The two with the most votes would reach November, even if they belong to the same party.
Yes vote
Massachusetts would replace separate party primaries for state elections with one all-candidate primary and send the top two finishers to November.
No vote
Massachusetts would keep separate political-party primaries.
The question to ask yourself
Is broader primary competition worth the possibility of fewer party and minor-party choices in November?
The case for
- Lets every primary voter choose among all candidates.
- Could produce more competitive general elections in districts dominated by one party.
- Could encourage candidates to appeal beyond their party's base.
Backed by: Coalition for Healthy Democracy, Danielle Allen
The case against
- Two candidates from the same party could be the only November choices.
- Minor-party and independent candidates could have greater difficulty reaching the general election.
- Political parties would lose control over selecting their nominees.
Opposed by: Voter Rights MA, Democratic Party of Massachusetts, Republican Party of Massachusetts
- Money
- The official fiscal statement says there are no discernible material fiscal consequences for state or municipal finances.
- Don't be misled
- It is misleading to call this merely an open primary, because it also creates a top-two general-election system and can leave one party absent from November.