Massachusetts voters considering Question 3 in November face a debate over whether replacing separate party primaries with a shared contest would make elections more competitive or give wealthy candidates and donors greater influence.
The proposal would place candidates together on a September preliminary ballot, with the two highest finishers moving on to November regardless of party. Supporters argue that would give more voters a meaningful role in deciding elections. Critics warn that it could exclude a party from the final ballot even when its candidates collectively attract the most votes.
Those competing arguments appear in three opinion pieces published Oct. 22 by CommonWealth Beacon. They offer sharply different assessments of how the change would affect Massachusetts incumbents, challengers and political parties.
The case for more competition
The pro-Question 3 commentary argues that Massachusetts elections too often effectively end in September, when participation is lower than in November. Its central contention is that incumbents should have to compete before the larger general-election electorate rather than secure their positions through a party primary.
The piece points to state Sen. Will Brownsberger’s Democratic primary against Daniel Lander. According to that account, Brownsberger faced his first challenger in 14 years and won by 35 votes after substantially outspending Lander. The commentary argues that a strong challenger could carry momentum into November under the proposed system instead of being eliminated in September.
Supporters also identify crowded primaries as a weakness of the existing rules. The favorable commentary cites U.S. Rep. Jake Auchincloss winning a nine-person primary with 22.4% and U.S. Rep. Lori Trahan winning a 10-person contest in 2018 with 21.7%. It argues that advancing two candidates would give voters another competitive choice rather than leave a primary winner with little general-election opposition.
Critics point to split votes
An opposing CommonWealth Beacon commentary uses elections in Washington and California to illustrate a different concern: several candidates from one party can divide its support enough to leave none in November.
In Washington’s 2016 treasurer contest, the piece reports, three Democrats together received nearly 52% of primary votes. But two Republicans finished ahead of them individually, taking both general-election spots.
The same commentary describes the reverse occurring in California’s 4th State Senate District in 2022. Six Republicans collectively drew nearly 60%, but two Democrats advanced because each outpolled every individual Republican.
The supportive piece characterizes such exclusions as uncommon. The opposing piece acknowledges they usually do not occur but argues that the risk pressures less-established candidates to withdraw, potentially narrowing opportunities for candidates of color and those with fewer financial resources.
Money and political accountability
Funding is another dividing line. The opposing commentary reports that the supporting committee raised $7.7 million, compared with less than $200,000 for the opposition. The favorable piece counters that challenging an established political system requires substantial financial backing, noting that wealthy donors also supported Massachusetts’ unsuccessful 2020 ranked-choice voting measure.
In a separate CommonWealth Beacon essay, Jerold Duquette and Lawrence Friedman argue that Question 3 would weaken parties’ ability to select their candidates and make party affiliation less useful to voters. They predict greater influence for self-funded candidates and well-financed interests, while supporters maintain that parties could still endorse candidates.
The disagreement is ultimately about accountability: supporters see a second competitive round as a way to make officeholders answer to more voters, while Duquette and Friedman argue that weakening ties between candidates and party platforms would make accountability harder.
