For Accountability and Competitive Elections, Vote ‘Yes’ on Question 3

Five years ago, I found myself at a community meeting in Springfield, Massachusetts, surrounded by engaged, informed citizens. But many of them planned not to vote.

I asked why. Their answer? “There are no choices on the ballot.”

On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters will decide whether to replace conventional partisan primaries for state elections with all-party primaries where the top two candidates in each race advance to the general election. In Massachusetts, the Democratic nominee almost always wins — and so today the Democratic primary, not the general election, often effectively decides the final winner. But we can fix this.

To keep our politicians accountable and give yourself real choices in future elections, vote “yes” on Question 3.

When I look at my own ballot, I typically see only one name per line, or — in the general election — a token competition between a Democrat poised to cruise to victory and a Republican who reached the ballot by earning a very small number of votes in a low-turnout partisan primary. The voters I spoke with in Springfield all those years ago had a lot to say — about asthma from pollution; housing, rent, and eviction; challenges to forming small businesses; concerns about schools; and policing. But November after November, our state’s elections often have barely a trace of competition. So why vote?

The consequences spiral: When politicians don’t have rivals, they don’t have to listen to voters. They can take voters for granted. Competitive elections should be the lifeblood of democracy.

The all-party primary is a policy solution that will reboot competition. In an all-party primary, every voter gets the same primary ballot with all the candidates, from every party, and you vote for your favorite. Then the top two vote-getters move forward to the general election. In a state with a single dominant party, this will switch the decisive election from the primary — where only around 20 percent of people vote — to the general, where 50 to 70 percent of people do. Voters will have real choices in November.

In fact, every state that has introduced an all-party or top-two primary system has seen a serious jump up in the number of contested elections. Compared with Massachusetts, states with an all-party primary have also seen faster legislative diversification, lower rates of incumbent retention, and bumps up in primary turnout. When challengers are able to defeat incumbents, we bring fresh voices to government, and the state more quickly advances toward representation that is reflective of a changing population.

People often raise three concerns with Question 3.

First, that vote-splitting among candidates from the dominant party might lead to two candidates from the minor party advancing. But “lockouts,” as that scenario is called, are exceptionally rare. They have occurred just three times in California and Washington in more than 2,300 elections using this system — once each to Democrats in California and Washington, and once to Republicans in California.

Second, some worry that the requirement to run in a competitive general election will cost more, benefiting candidates with money. But it is simply inexcusable to treat the general election as an inconvenience to be avoided. The general election is the people’s moment of choice. The duty and responsibility of candidates is to prepare for it. The challenges of funding campaigns should be addressed by public campaign finance and means-tested income support for candidates.

What’s more, interestingly and counterintuitively, the requirement to run through the general does not increase the costs of campaigns. Incumbents almost always finish in the top two, so they have little reason to spend heavily in the primary. They are liable to instead save their money for November — so their spending is spread across a longer campaign rather than increased.

Finally, some decry the fact that we’ve raised millions of dollars to support this ballot initiative from deep-pocketed donors — arguing that this shows this is just a scheme by wealthy people to skew things to their own advantage. But the very people complaining about democracy philanthropists supporting this measure were quite happy to see the very same people support the 2020 ballot initiative for ranked-choice voting.

This time round, I’m actually the first donor to the campaign for all-party primaries and public records. I pulled $50,000 out of my retirement account — in the form of a loan, which I am still paying back to myself every month via a deduction from my paycheck. I donated the whole amount to the campaign and also donated the end of my old candidate committee, another $30,000.

I then asked two friends in the democracy reform space to match me. One, Ian Simmons, has done as much as anyone I know to support youth voting and engagement, as well as advocating for a wealth tax. The other, Randy Peeler, along with Simmons, has donated extensively to ranked-choice voting movements and to campaign finance reform. I asked them to help me find their friends ready to join a multi-racial, multigenerational, cross-class, cross-ideological, democracy-first coalition.

And we built just that: gathering over 100,000 signatures from 348 out of 351 municipalities in Massachusetts, with hundreds of volunteers giving their most precious resource of time and hundreds of donors making gifts from 5 dollars and 10 dollars to six-figure contributions. We have asked everyone to give what they can: talent, treasure, or time. The wealthy should be giving more treasure to help fix our broken democracy. I am immensely proud of the incredible coalition we have built over the last three years.

The status quo isn’t working for Massachusetts. Voters deserve better. More choices and more competitive elections are a big step toward a government that listens. And a government that listens is one that can finally fix what’s broken.

Danielle Allen is the James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University and director of the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation and of the Democratic Knowledge Project.