Massachusetts voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have replaced the state’s current party primaries with a single, all-party primary system, in which the top two candidates would have advanced to the general election.
According to unofficial election results from the Associated Press as of Wednesday afternoon, the proposal, appearing on the ballot as Question 3, was defeated by a wide margin in Tuesday’s general election. With 94 percent of the expected vote counted, 1,508,424 voters, or roughly 61 percent of the total, opposed the measure, compared to 961,720 voters who supported it.
Under Question 3, Massachusetts would have eliminated its current individual party primaries for state elections and instead required all candidates, regardless of their partisan affiliation, to compete on the same ballot. Only the two candidates receiving the most votes would have advanced to the general election, even if they belonged to the same party. The proposed system was similar to what’s currently used in California and Washington.
It also would have changed how the state recognizes its political parties, shifting the existing requirement that an organization receive at least 3 percent of the vote in a statewide race from the general election to the primary. With its defeat, the state will retain its current system, which allows political organizations to qualify for recognition by earning that 3 percent or alternatively enrolling at least 1 percent of the state’s registered voters.
The question face opposition from political parties across Massachusetts, both recognized and unrecognized. The Massachusetts Democratic and Republican parties both opposed the measure for differing reasons, as did several of the state’s more vocal, smaller organizations, which largely expressed concerns that its adoption would have made it more difficult for independent and third party candidates to reach the general election.
Independent Political Report identified statements in opposition to the proposal from the Unified Libertarians of Massachusetts, the Liberty Alliance of Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Working Families Party. A panel organized by the Massachusetts Pirate Party also voted against supporting the measure following a discussion.
Among the parties examined by IPR, the only organization to formally support the question was the Massachusetts Forward Party, which originally helped collect signatures to secure it a place on the statewide ballot.
In defending the question, the Forward Party said the proposed change would have provided voters with more candidates to consider and encouraged those running to expand their appeal to a larger portion of the electorate. While it acknowledged some of the concerns held by other smaller parties about what Question 3 meant for candidate access to the general election ballot, it still maintained that the potential benefits outweighed those drawbacks.
Following the close of polls Tuesday, the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, which led the campaign in support of Question 3, conceded defeat in a statement to state media. The group called its efforts a race against the status quo, suggesting that voters ultimately favored a system that felt safe and familiar despite it being one that the group viewed as having serious shortcomings.
“So many across Massachusetts stood up and said they’re done with elections that are decided before they begin […] The people of Massachusetts want real choices in November and elected officials who have to work to earn all of our votes,” the coalition said. “That frustration doesn’t go away tonight.”
Be First to Comment