With the general election days away, Independent Political Report has collected statements from several Massachusetts third parties on a ballot measure that would see the state adopt a single all-party primary in which only the top two candidates advance.
Under the proposal, appearing as Question 3, Massachusetts would eliminate its current separate party primary system for state elections and replace it with a single primary in which all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of their political affiliation. Following the primary, only the two highest vote-getters would advance to the general election, even if they belong to the same party. Similar systems are already used elsewhere, including California and Washington.
As for official party recognition, which currently requires a Massachusetts party to either enroll at least 1 percent of registered voters or receive at least 3 percent of the vote for a statewide office, Question 3 would shift the latter requirement from the general election to the primary.
So where do the various third parties of Massachusetts stand?
The Massachusetts Forward Party
The Massachusetts Forward Party supports Question 3, arguing that it would make elections more competitive by giving voters a greater selection of candidates during the primary process. It was also active earlier in the cycle with collecting signatures in support of the question.
The organization references Massachusetts’ large unenrolled voter population, which accounts for roughly two-thirds of registered voters, and argues that allowing them the chance to consider all candidates on a single ballot would provide greater opportunities for political participation. It also believes the change would encourage candidates to appeal beyond their usual electoral bases.
“In an era of hyperpartisanship, All-Party Primaries would also likely incentivize candidates to adopt less extreme positions and reach beyond their traditional party bases to make their case to a broader electorate,” the party said. “We believe this is healthy for restoring decency, sanity, and common sense to politics.”
The Forward Party also acknowledges concerns from independents and third party candidates about losing access to general election ballots under a top-two system. However, it believes the opportunity to compete in November with a greater chance of winning outweighs those drawbacks, arguing that the existing system often leaves third party candidates with little opportunity beyond being a “token protest vote.”
The Massachusetts Forward Party’s full statement is available here.
The Unified Libertarians of Massachusetts
The Unified Libertarians of Massachusetts, the recognized state affiliate of the Libertarian Party, opposes the measure. The organization argues that limiting general elections to the top two finishers would effectively eliminate third party candidates from reaching the general election ballot.
“California has adopted this election method, and often the two-top vote winners are in the same party, depending upon the district both are Democrats or both Republicans, giving voters no real choice in the general election,” the party said.
The Unified Libertarians of Massachusetts’ full statement, as well as where it stands on other statewide ballot questions, is available here.
The Liberty Alliance of Massachusetts
The Liberty Alliance of Massachusetts, an affiliate of the Liberal Party USA, has also come out against Question 3, calling it “electoral reform theater.” The organization supports taking control of primaries away from political parties, calling it a “good idea whose time has come,” but warns the proposal before voters would instead lock out independents and third parties almost completely.
“By keeping Massachusetts ballot access requirements among the most burdensome in the nation, and restricting the general election to the top two of an open primary, voters will have fewer choices,” the party states. “The incentive to trade their true preference for the ‘lesser evil’ will be even greater. In a large field, such as an open congressional seat, the majority of voters will not even see their top choice in the general election.”
Instead, the Liberty Alliance proposes an open primary in which the five highest vote-getters advance to a general election decided by ranked choice voting. The organization also supports lowering ballot access requirements generally.
The Liberty Alliance of Massachusetts’ full statement is available here.
The Massachusetts Working Families Party
The Massachusetts Working Families Party similarly opposes the proposal, arguing that it would benefit wealthier candidates by requiring longer and more expensive campaigns. The organization cautions that the proposed system would increase the influence of corporate donors while making it harder for grassroots candidates and those aligned with third parties to reach the general election.
“We need more competition in our elections, but Question 3 is a worse system dressed up as a solution,” Josh Wolfsun, MAWFP State Director, said in the statement. “We’ve seen this exact experiment run in California. It produced longer, more expensive campaigns that made it harder for grassroots candidates to win, and the state legislature moved right because of it.”
The state Working Families Party said it instead supports public campaign financing, same-day voter registration, and ranked choice voting in primaries as alternatives for improving electoral competition.
The Massachusetts Working Families Party’s full statement is available here.
The Massachusetts Pirate Party
Unlike other third parties this year, the Massachusetts Pirate Party organized a panel debate on Question 3, with members offering varying opinions on the proposal. Views on the question were divided, with skeptics echoing concerns that it would limit the presence and influence of independents and third parties and benefit wealthy donors. A single member in favor, meanwhile, regarded it as a pragmatic step forward in a single-party state like Massachusetts, suggesting it would compel candidates to appeal to a more diverse base.
The panel voted 3–1 against supporting the proposal, with the majority warning that adoption would present a step backward for the adoption of ranked choice voting.
A recording of the Massachusetts Pirate Party’s panel discussion is available here.
Editorial note: Other third party organizations not listed above who want to include their statement are invited to contact a member of the editorial team.
Be First to Comment