Opinion: Will the ‘all-party primary’ make Mass. elections more democratic?

As a Dartmouth resident and independent, I am interested in a fundamental question about our democracy: Should every voter have the same opportunity to participate in choosing the candidates who advance to the general election, regardless of political affiliation?

Approximately 67% of Massachusetts voters are independent, often called unenrolled, meaning they are not registered with a political party. Under the current primary system, independent voters may choose a Democratic or Republican ballot in a state primary. However, voters who prefer not to affiliate with either major party may feel that the current system does not reflect their political independence and the fact they chose not to join a party.

Question 3 on Nov. 3 calls for changing to an election system where there would be one primary ballot where all candidates, regardless of political affiliation, would appear, and voters vote for any candidate. The two highest primary vote-getters would face off in the general election. Municipal elections in Massachusetts cities for mayor and local offices use this system. Question 3 would change the way our statewide elections are conducted and be run in the same way.

The Democratic and Republican party leadership oppose Question 3. There has been a lot of false information circulating about Question 3. First, that it will favor wealthy, self-funded candidates. This is not true. In California, for example, which has the all-party primary (or open primary), Tom Steyer spent $200 million on his primary gubernatorial candidacy this year while the two advancing candidates, a Democrat and Republican, each spent under $20 million. 

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on June 30, 2026 that for federal elections the political parties can spend unlimited amounts of money on their candidates. In National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that limits on “coordinated party expenditures” violate the First Amendment.

With all-party primaries, third parties, independent and lesser-known candidates will be able to participate on a level playing field with the major parties. Their names, with party affiliation if they choose, would appear side by side with the major party candidates. More competition, in other words.

Massachusetts has the least competitive elections of all states in the U.S. according to Ballotpedia, the nation’s premier resource for unbiased information on elections, politics, and policy, which means that in most cases whoever wins the primary automatically wins the general election. In most Massachusetts races, candidates in the general election face no opposition. 

The Massachusetts State Legislature is among the least productive legislatures in the country. Competition is required for debate, dialogue, and winning over the broadest cross section of voters who want candidates to discuss solutions and engage voters on issues and develop and enact policy. The general election following an all-party primary will be a meaningful contest with two competitive candidates.

The Democratic and Republican parties seek to control an increasingly narrow cohort of voters and election outcomes. This puts the politicians in charge. The all-party primary puts the people in charge by instituting one ballot with all candidates listed and voters choose who they want to vote for from the entire field. Increased competition incentivizes candidates to appeal to the broadest constituency across party lines.

Massachusetts voters have an opportunity to consider strengthening our democracy on Nov. 3. 

Douglas A. Balder is a resident of Dartmouth.