To Jungle or Not to Jungle: A Tale of Two Primary Systems
Ballot Question #3: State Primary Elections
Exhausted by this year's ballot questions? We've provided our perspectives to help you understand the pros and cons of Ballot Question #3. Photo from a Mass 50501 volunteer.
Ballot Question #3 will affect how Massachusetts conducts our primaries. Under our current system, primaries are run by party. Each voter casts their ballot for either the Democratic or the Republican primary, with unenrolled or independent voters able to select which ballot they want on the day of the primary. If you choose a Democratic ballot, you can only vote between Democratic candidates. Likewise, if you choose a Republican ballot, you can only vote between Republican candidates.
But if Question #3 passes, all that will change. Instead of primaries by party, Massachusetts will adopt what is known as a jungle primary, also known as an open, all-party, or top-two primary. This means all the candidates will be on the primary ballot together, and the top two will progress to the general. This could mean one Democrat and one Republican, as is the current standard, but it could also mean two Democrats or two Republicans advancing to the general. Such measures have been adopted in states like California, with voters expressing mixed feelings on the success of the change. The opinions of the Mass 50501 newsletter team are mixed as well. Read on to hear our varied stances and reasonings, and if you want to discuss your own opinion with fellow Massachusetts voters, join us on Discord!
Via L. - NO
I’m voting NO on #3—not because I support the current system, but because the flaws of a jungle primary can be catastrophic. Instead of either a two-party or jungle primary, I’m a proponent of ranked choice voting, which capitalizes on the positives of both systems while minimizing the negatives.
In practice, jungle primaries are chaotic. They encourage extreme amounts of vote splitting, reducing how well voters are represented, and are too easily manipulated to achieve unfair outcomes. For example, say six Democrats and two Republicans run for governor. About 60% of Massachusetts typically votes blue, so you’d expect at least one of the primary winners to be Democrats. But if the 60% of liberal voters are evenly split on whom they favor, each Democrat will get just 10% of the total vote. Meanwhile, if the conservative 40% splits evenly over the two Republicans, they take 20% each. That means Massachusetts, despite being overwhelmingly liberal, would end up forced to choose between two conservatives in the general, with no liberal candidate at all.
This isn’t hypothetical—in fact, it was a real concern for California’s most recent governor primary, which had a mind-boggling 61 candidates, and extreme vote splitting occurred in many of the district representative elections. In district 40, five Democrats ran against two Republicans and one Independent. About 43% of the district voted Democrat, but because it was fractured among five candidates, the two winners were both Republicans. In districts like 43, over 80% of the population voted blue, but as it was spread over so many Democrats, the lone Republican candidate still advanced to the general, instead of two Democrats. In another seven districts (8, 10, 15, 17, 19, 30, and 36), about 70% or more of the population voted Democrat, but at least one Republican continued to the general anyway.
Furthermore, again as demonstrated in California, jungle primaries encourage dirty tactics, like one side quietly recruiting people to run with the opposition to fragment the field, or, as Gavin Newsom did to secure his 2018 win, encouraging your own supporters to vote for the opposing party’s weakest candidate. Such a system also exacerbates the existing issue of candidates with bigger budgets having a disproportionate amount of influence over the result.
In short, jungle primaries can be manipulated to box out certain groups of candidates, and the outcome isn’t reflective of the voting majority. Jungle primaries split the vote, and winning requires very little real support. By contrast, with ranked choice voting, voters list their favorite candidate first, even if it’s a long shot independent, while still supporting their preferred mainstream candidate. By establishing ranked choice voting up and down the ballot, we can also solve issues with local-level candidates running uncontested, and empower everyone to feel like our voices truly matter. So vote NO on #3, and join the campaign for ranked choice voting!
Ryan S. - YES
A good election system is one that gives voters choices on who wins. In this regard, our current primary election system has significant shortfalls. Although nobody who is allowed to vote in a general election is restricted from voting in a primary, voters face many restrictions on the races they can vote in. Consider this example from last September’s primary: For some voters in my town of Middleborough, choosing a Democratic ballot allowed them to vote on candidates for their representation in Congress, but provided no choices for their state house representation. Choosing a Republican ballot offered the opposite issue: options for governor and state rep, but not federal officers. These kinds of outcomes are common across the state, and are a bit nonsensical. Imagine if in the general election voters in some districts had to choose between voting in state or federal races; such a result would raise eyebrows if not questions about civil rights law. And yet, this type of disenfranchisement is the standard of our current primary system.
Worse, the current system effectively limits voter choices in the general election as well. Because parties are discouraged from running candidates in “safe” districts that don’t typically swing their way, they don’t always do so. As voter turnout is about three times higher in the general election, this means that many races are decided before voters go to the polls. About 60% of legislative races in Massachusetts will be uncontested this November.
Implementing an all-party primary, achievable by voting yes on Question 3, would solve these issues and give voters the choices they deserve. The possibility of having no options for certain races on primary ballots would disappear immediately. The guarantee of having two candidates on the general ballot (except in races where only one candidate runs), would certainly reduce the number of uncontested races, giving more voters more chances to cast a deciding vote.
Establishing an all-party primary would go beyond improving democratic participation among voters; it would also create a path for more independent voices in our politics. Few people right now vote for candidates without a D and an R next to their name out of a reasonable expectation that these candidates will lose. However, if an independent candidate succeeds in a primary and faces off against only one other candidate in the general election, then it becomes impossible for the candidate to be a spoiler, and voters would be more emboldened to vote for their candidate of choice regardless of their political affiliation. Even if voters ultimately choose the party-affiliated candidate, the primary process would lead them to compete for voters across the political spectrum, promoting candidates who are less partisan. This would in turn encourage elected officials to work across the aisle when doing so best serves their constituents. Even if this anti-partisan effect is mild, it would still be an improvement over the highly polarized status quo.
Critics of the all-party primary system claim that it will empower rich candidates who can buy enough attention in the primary to progress to the general ballot and, through vote splitting, potentially block all candidates of a locally popular party from the November ballot. Both of these fears are overblown. The available research suggests all-party primaries do not advantage wealthy candidates any more than the current system does. Admittedly, unexpected election results caused by vote splitting is a mathematical possibility, but it is not a foregone conclusion. Since California and Washington switched to the all-party primary, only 3 out of over 2,000 races featured parties receiving a majority of the vote in the primary being blocked out of the general election altogether.
In summary, at stake in Question 3 is what races you are allowed to vote in and the partisan makeup of the candidates that run. Creating an all-party primary promises less partisanship and more choices. Keeping the current system will exacerbate partisanship and afford voters fewer choices. For these reasons, I will be voting yes on 3. I encourage others wanting more responsive representation to do the same.
Mike B. - NO
Electoral systems are a means for us the voters to translate our varied preferences to the selection of our public servants. Of course, the foundation of any electoral system is ensuring that all eligible citizens are able to vote and have their vote counted (check out Mass 50501’s Protect Our Vote campaign to learn more about how you can be part of this effort for the upcoming midterm elections!). Beyond the core requirement, electoral systems should satisfy two criteria: give each voter the opportunity to indicate their most-preferred candidate while ultimately electing the candidate who is acceptable to the most voters.
In our current electoral system, we endeavor to accomplish this through separate party-run primaries. Citizens vote in the primary of the party most aligned with their own values, and the winners of these primaries face off in the general election. While this method lets each voter choose their top choice in the primary, it selects the most broadly-acceptable candidate by assuming that if your top choice didn’t win the primary, then you’ll be satisfied with whoever did win the primary that you voted in. In elections where only one party runs a primary in the first place or a candidate has appeal beyond a single party, the current primary system may not allow us to vote for our top candidate or elect the candidate who is most broadly acceptable to the electorate, motivating the consideration of other election methods like the jungle primary method under consideration in Question 3.
While jungle primaries may seem tempting in theory, in practice they fail to capture the will of the electorate. As seen in the recent California gubernatorial election, jungle primaries incentivize voters to base their vote on who they think everyone else will vote for in order to ensure that there is a candidate they will like on the general election ballot, rather than simply voting for their most preferred candidate. This incentive proceeds from jungle primaries’ tendency to penalize vote splitting—multiple candidates appealing to similarly minded voters—even more than our current party primary system. Whereas in our current system vote splitting doesn’t prevent another candidate from your preferred party from making it to the general election, under a jungle primary you could end up with no candidates whom you support at all on the general election ballot if those who disagree with you coalesce around fewer candidates than those who agree with you.
Party primaries, although imperfect vessels for our preferences, help ensure that even if your top choice isn’t in the general election, there will likely be someone who you can stomach voting for on the general election ballot. We should aim for voting systems that encourage, rather than harshly penalize, additional perspectives from more candidates in our elections. Having an effective means of choosing from several candidates gives voters more opportunities to choose the best candidate to meet their needs, including candidates who may have fewer campaign funds but the best policy platform. Passing Question 3 would, in practice, incentivize consolidating our options to mediocre, well-financed candidates who voters feel that they have no choice but to support to avoid being locked out of the general election. Instead, we should continue to work towards ranked-choice voting, potentially with a top-four system like Alaska’s where the primary selects four candidates whom voters can rank in the general election. We need better elections, but, in my opinion, passing Question 3 is not the answer.
Julie L. - NO
I’m voting no on Question 3. I’m honestly kind of bummed to be voting no on an election reform question—I’d love for us to do anything to loosen the stranglehold the Republican and Democratic Parties have on our elections generally! Unfortunately, I don’t think all-party primaries will do that. Looking at the game-theory of it all, primaries are our only chance as individual voters to vote for who and what we want, without having to think too hard about guarding against what we really don’t want. Moving to an all-party primary will disincentivize potential “spoilers” from running in the first place (e.g., if a progressive candidate might split votes with a more corporate Democrat, are we stuck with a Republican?), and might make people more leery of voting for someone in the primary that the party machines have dubbed “unelectable.” Additionally, this system would actually limit our options in the general election; as it stands, the people progressing to the general election are one Democrat, one Republican, and any third party or independent candidates. With the implementation of all-party primaries, we’d be restricted to only two candidates in the general—in practice, most likely a Democrat and a Republican.
I want to see election reform that pulls the power away from the party machines and puts it back into people’s hands! Realistically, I think we need to look at campaign finance reform for this—the biggest obstacle to running for office is the inherent cost in running a competitive campaign, driven inexorably up by the parties’ fundraising apparatuses and the vanity campaigns run by the very wealthy from their own pockets, effectively locking out anyone not endorsed by the party. The jungle primary is not the way.
Susan M. - NO
You must have at least two parties with the idea that the one that's not in power will monitor the one that is in power. But as the current situation shows, that's corruptible. Adding three, just doesn't cut it either, as we've seen in the past. But the fact that this bill would allow two candidates from the same party is a real problem. And something I can't accept. Imagine if two Maga candidates were up for re-election for each of our Senator seats in Massachusetts? A better alternative might be ranked choice voting. I feel I have to do more research before I go for that, however. Until we get money out of politics, and remove Citizens United, any kind of reform is going to be hindered. Just follow the money. So I vote no.
Keith L. - NO
My main concern with Question 3 is that of “who does this help” and that of party politics. I am a lifelong Undeclared, and have always been happy that Massachusetts allows such a registration, because like George Washington, I am incredibly wary of the Us vs Them division that results from party grouping, and the strange sports-team-like support that party affiliation can create. Question 3 on its face seems fair and in good faith with the idea that party should not matter when choosing candidates in a primary, but it does not pass the smell test of “who does this help.” It certainly helps moneyed interests, and I don’t see how it helps independents or newcomers to the field. It also raises my eyebrow to see who supports this question. The Massachusetts Republican Party is against it, as well as many progressive groups. Seeing this leads me to believe that the only beneficiary of this Question 3 passing would be establishment MA Democrats.
I would much rather Massachusetts move towards a ranked choice voting approach to allow us to truly get our vote behind ideas instead of campaigns. Since this question doesn’t address this, and even has the potential to further entrench current politicians, I am voting no on Question 3.
Although we’re all in this fight against authoritarianism together, our policy positions can diverge greatly. And even where we agree in our conclusions, our reasoning doesn’t always follow the same lines. The Newsletter Team loves getting into the weeds on these issues, and we urge everyone in this movement to have their own discussions about these ballot questions, about proposed policy, and about how we can fix this whole systemic political mess we find ourselves in.
Enjoyed this article? Get updates on the movement, volunteer opportunities, and more by clicking below.