Top-Two Primary Elections Initiative – Question 3 would adopt top-two primaries for state offices and require gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial candidates to run as a joint ticket in primaries. The top-two primary system requires that all political parties put their candidates into the same primary, where they compete against each other. The top two vote getters advance to the general election.
Why Do We Recommend a NO vote? Question 3 attempts to solve “primary election voter participation and candidate competition.” It is true that our primaries draw less than 25% participation, and often candidates run unopposed. However, scarce candidate competition and low voter participation contributes to a moribund statehouse, which is the greater problem. The statehouse is unproductive because we keep reelecting legislators who are bound to moneyed interests, not voters. So will the top-two primary system help us get candidates that will represent people, not lobbyists? In fact, it could make the problem even worse, as we describe below.
In the top-two primary, candidates need MORE money, not less. In Massachusetts, the Democrat in the general election typically wins because we are a deep blue state. But if both Democrats advance from the primary to the general, they both have to run again. To challenge the incumbent, the grassroots-funded candidate would have to win twice, once in the top-two primary and then again in November. Candidates refusing PAC money would have to raise twice the small dollar donations. This would be a barrier for most grassroots candidates and favor the incumbent.
Top-two voting causes MORE pressure to leave the race, not less. The top-two primary system increases pressure on grassroots candidates to leave a race due to fears of vote-splitting, where a large number of candidates split the electorate. In extreme cases, only candidates of one party advance creating the dreaded lockout. We saw this problem in the 2026 California gubernatorial race. Their top-two primary included 2 Republicans, with more than 15 Democrats and other left candidates. Immediately, pressure started on grassroots candidates to drop out of the race to make sure at least one Democrat made it to the general election. This fear led to the consolidation behind either the billionaire candidate or the candidate backed by PAC money. While the lockout rate is small, only the fear of the lockout is needed to force candidates out.
The top-two primary system will not change primary participation. In fact, Massachusetts already allows the unenrolled voter to vote in the primaries. In a semi-closed primary system like ours, registered party voters must vote in their own primary, but unenrolled voters may request either a Democratic or Republican ballot. Voters interested in primaries can already do that.
Top-two voting would give more power to political parties, not less. Currently Massachusetts does not have a system for parties to endorse down-ballot candidates such as state senators and representatives. The initiative introduces such a system, however it does not describe a process for endorsement. If the concern is that incumbents have too much power, do we trust either party to create an endorsement process that is fair and transparent?
Top-two voting would result in fewer grassroots candidates, and more PAC supported Democrats. The top-two system structurally punishes parties for having too many candidates in the race. The increased competition makes it harder for an individual candidate to advance and favors those with more money.
The basic problem is how Question 3 defines “competitive elections,” which is their stated goal. They simply want more people to run for office. Their goal is not value oriented; they do not care what type of candidates advance to the general election. It could be 2 Democrats or 2 Republicans. It could be billionaires or candidates that take corporate PAC money.
We must ask ourselves, is this the way to solve our unproductive legislature problem? Or does it simply further entrench party power, the influence of money, and the power of incumbent name recognition? We urge you to vote NO on Question 3.