The entry below is being cross posted from Marjorie Arons-Barron’s own blog.

A basic premise of our democratic form of government is that people choose their leaders, one person exercising one vote. (This, despite legislative redistricting, where leaders try to choose their voters.) In Massachusetts, we don’t get to choose among all candidates for statewide office, whatever their parties. The parties act as gatekeepers. Even with thousands of supporters, some candidates never make it onto the primary ballot. Question 3 would enable voter access to the widest field.

Right now, party convention delegates, chosen by caucuses, cull each field of statewide candidates before voters can weigh in. Republicans and Democrats use candidate support from at least a15 percent of convention delegates to qualify for the primary ballot. A candidate who misses the threshold for state convention support by a narrow margin can only run as a write-in.

With an all-party state primary, as envisioned by Question 3, all qualifying Republicans, Democrats, third party and independent candidates would appear on the same primary ballot. Voters would choose one candidate for each office, regardless of affiliation. Candidates could, however, display on the ballot their party affiliation and, if applicable, party endorsement. In the new system, the top two vote getters for each office – regardless of party – would be the only ones listed on the November general election ballot.  Gubernatorial and lieutenant governor candidates would run as a team.

Q. 3 should incentivize greater primary participation. Voters would get a larger primary field, but only two candidates would appear in  November, when more voters go to the polls. Independent and minor party candidates would lose their current general election access and must instead survive the all-party primary. California and Washington report zero third-party or independent candidates serving in their legislatures. Increasing major party competition comes with costs and trade-offs.

Massachusetts has real institutional problems. It has earned its reputation as one of the least electorally competitive states. For most of the last eight election cycles, Massachusetts has been one of the three least competitive (often the least) states in legislative elections, that according to Ballotpedia. Q. 3 could address that unhealthy distinction.

In Massachusetts, an unenrolled voter may take either party’s ballot but is locked into that party’s nominees for every office. MA voters have a history of ticket splitting in November, voting for a governor from one party and other candidates from another party. Question 3 would allow this in the primary. Two former governors, Republican Charlie Baker and Democrat Deval Patrick are both Q. 3 supporters, in contrast to officials of their own parties.

I have knowledgeable friends I respect on both sides of Q. 3. As I have struggled with the issue, I’ve researched it, read published materials and interviewed election experts and California voters. Most California voters complained they had to choose a gubernatorial candidate from a field of 61 in last June’s all-person primary to identify the top two for November’s ballot. It took days for the results to be tabulated, but it got done in the end. (It should be noted that Massachusetts requires 10,000 signatures for gubernatorial candidates to get on the ballot while California requires under 100.)

Q. 3 critics warn that the top two vote getters could both be Republicans or both be Democrats, locking out the other (majority) party (This occurred in California twice, one in a House race in 2012 and a state Senate race in 2022, and in aWashington state treasurer race in 2016.) Given the number of races, it seems to be a rare occurrence.

If states are intended to be “laboratories of democracy,” “blue” Massachusetts presents an interesting case for all-party (or all-person) voting. Nearly two thirds are registered as unenrolled, a higher percentage than in any other state. Polls here indicate those “independents” who lean Democrat outnumber those who lean Republican about three to one. Alaska (63.2) has a nearly similar high percentage of unenrolled and nonpartisan voters, but the majority of them have traditionally favored Republicans. (Just 22.9 percent of Californians record “no party preference.”) Massachusetts’ exceptionally high unenrolled registration does not itself prove that the electorate wants less partisan government. It does, however, call attention to whether existing state elections provide meaningful choices among candidates who may share a party affiliation but differ substantially in how they would govern.

For Q. 3, a key question is how many “independents” who regularly vote for Democrats would welcome a meaningful choice between two Democrats in November instead of just an unopposed option? Cities in Massachusetts already have nonpartisan mayoral preliminary and general elections. People seem comfortable with hard-fought debates between and among individuals in the same party and are able to discern differences among them.

In a crowded open-seat field, a candidate can advance on a small plurality while ideologically similar candidates split a majority and are virtually eliminated. One example we have seen: When Jake Auchincloss first ran for Congress in 2020 from the state’s 4^th CD in a nine-person field, he won with 22.4 percent of the vote, defeating a cluster of candidates to his left. His was the minority moderate choice. Since then, as reported by the Newton Beacon, a majority of the district now gives him a 75 percent job approval and 67 percent favorability rating. Under Q3, he might have lost his first race.

Supporters of Q. 3 assert that the all-party primary will reduce polarization at both ends of the political spectrum because candidates will have to appeal to a broader electorate. (This was part of Charlie Baker’s endorsement.) While this might seem logical, studies of voting records in both California and Washington state done in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020 and 2024 show only modest reduction in polarization, and findings are inconsistent, making claims like Baker’s overstated.

Opponents of Question 3 warn that an all-party primary could give wealthy candidates an advantage, particularly when large fields make it expensive to stand out and differentiate themselves. Wealthy candidates could self-finance themselves into top slots is a legitimate concern, although hardly a problem unique to the proposed system. Clearly there’s already obscenely too much money everywhere in politics today, made worse by Citizens United and its progeny. It’s a preexisting widespread problem that must be addressed irrespective of this ballot question.

Importantly, personal wealth doesn’t automatically translate into electoral success. Josh Kraft (son of Bob) spent $5.5 million of his own money, compared to Mayor Michelle Wu’s $1.8 from all sources. Kraft won just 23 percent of the vote.  Money means little if you’re not a strong candidate with a clearcut message and good organization. We see gross expenditure of personal wealth – $16 million so far – in Republican Mike Minogue’s gubernatorial campaign to defeat Maura Healey. Several independent polls show him behind by 20 percentage points or more. (Suffolk/Globe, UMA/Amherst, MassINC. UNH poll shows a 16-point spread

Opponents also warn of gamesmanship, like one party putting up candidates in the opposing party to splinter the vote. That exists in the current system. We’ve seen that in traditional party primaries in South Carolina , Iowa and Georgia, where partisans on one side crossed to the other party primary to support candidates who would be more beatable in the general. In 2022 in Pennsylvania, Democrat Josh Shapiro worked to boost election denier Doug Mastriano in the GOP primary, figuring the Trump supporter would be more beatable that November.

Name confusion is another trick warned about. How often were candidates named Kennedy put up because they share a name with a Massachusetts political dynasty? In 1954, one John F. Kennedy became state treasurer because he shared a name with the then-U.S. Senator. Political candidates have long gamed the system.

Finally, I was uneasy about Q. 3’s provision that, if two candidates tied for the second place on the November ballot, the Commonwealth’s Secretary would choose the winner of the second slot “by lot.” Legally, that could happen in New Hampshire or Connecticut but not in Massachusetts. If passed, the legislature should amend the law by requiring a run-off.

Eight-term Republican Oklahoma Congressman Mickey Edwards (now an independent) has been pushing for a Q.3 type primary for years. A former Harvard and Princeton professor and the author of The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats Into Americans. He calls it an all-person rather than an all-party primary. “In a democracy,” he says, “all have equal rights to participate in every step of the election process. There is no requirement to join a club.”

Former chairman of the Mass. Democratic Party and of the Democratic National Committee, progressive Steve Grossman has spent a lifetime trying to increase political participation.  He sees the all-party primary as a way to bring attract first-time candidates, increase minority voting and convince young people that they can make a difference.  A big- D Democrat, his primary goal is small-d democracy and sees Q. 3 as a tool to enhance that.

If adopted, the parties would still be able to hold conventions, do candidate recruitment, development, training and support.(Question 3 lacks language on who and how candidates get endorsed.) They just couldn’t have the final word on whom we get to choose on the ballot.

Are there imperfections and uncertainties in the Q.3 proposal? Yes, but remember, this ballot question is an initiative petition, not a constitutional amendment. It doesn’t go into effect until 2028, and the legislature has more than a year to amend it.  They could even emulate Alaska’s all-person primary producing top four vote-getters followed by ranked choice voting (RCV) in the general election, which has its own appeal.  (Note: Massachusetts rejected a 2020 RCV initiative resulting from a muddled and ineffective voter education campaign.)

Arguably, an all-party primary asks more of voters, possibly including a greater effort to educate themselves about candidates’ policies, experience and character. But, if it does lead to a more open democratic process, that effort will have been well expended.  My wrestling with the issue leads me to a Yes on Question 3.