Massachusetts Republicans are pushing a voting system change that could finally give them a fighting chance in congressional races. The proposal, Question 3, would scrap party primaries entirely and replace them with an all-party, top-two system. Under that plan, every candidate runs on a single primary ballot, and the top two vote-getters advance to November.
The system is the same one California has used for over a decade. Massachusetts already applies a similar approach in many local elections. The difference here is national office.
How the Top-Two System Works
Question 3 would put every candidate on a single primary ballot, with the top two vote-getters advancing to November. The system is the same one California has used for over a decade. Massachusetts already applies a similar approach in many local elections.
The key shift is that candidates no longer face only their own party’s rivals. Instead, they compete against every candidate running, regardless of party. That opens the door for smaller parties and independents to run alongside major-party candidates.
Supporters argue the change would shake up a system they say has grown too comfortable. They point to decades of Democratic dominance in state House races as evidence that the current system favors one side over the other.
Who Opposes the Change
Opponents include the Massachusetts Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the AFL-CIO, and other unions. They argue the proposal could make campaigns more expensive, weaken party organizations, and increase donor influence.
The Massachusetts GOP stands to gain the most from the system, even though it opposes it. The party’s reasoning is simple: the current system locks it out of competitive races, and a top-two system could break that lock.
The Case for Change
The argument for Question 3 rests on a single point: the current system is broken for Republicans. The last two Republican House members, Peter Blute and Peter Torkildsen, lost reelection in 1996 after four years in office. Since then, Massachusetts Democrats have swept House races for over 30 years.
In 2024, incumbent Democrats faced no Republican opponents in 7 of 9 House districts. The closest race was Cape Cod and South Shore 9th District, where Rep. Bill Keating beat his Republican opponent 56% to 43%.
Under a top-two system, Republicans could win seats by fielding two candidates and splitting a multi-candidate Democratic field. That dynamic is the whole point of the proposal.
California’s Experience
California approved Proposition 14 in 2010, creating its top-two system. The results have been mixed, to say the least.
Rusty Hicks, chairman of the California Democratic Party, calls the system a failure that should be “revised or repealed.” His view carries weight because he represents the party most affected by the change.
Some Democrats in California have lost elections due to the top-two system. In June 2012, a heavily fragmented Democratic field led to a political disaster for the party in a newly drawn Inland Southern California seat that forced Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA) to wait two years to start his congressional career.
Aguilar got 22.6% of the vote, while Republican Rep. Gary Miller got 26.7% and Republican state Sen. Bob Dutton got 24.9%. The result was a Republican finishing ahead of Aguilar in the primary.
The Cost of Competition
Opponents warn that the proposal could make campaigns more expensive, weaken party organizations, and increase donor influence. Those are valid concerns, though they apply to any major political change.
A top-two system requires candidates to build broader coalitions. That means:
- More fundraising
- More outreach
- More scrutiny of where each dollar comes from
What the Vote Decides
Question 3 is a test of whether Massachusetts voters want a more open system. It is also a test of whether the state’s major parties can adapt to new rules.
The AFL-CIO and other unions are lined up against the change. That alignment suggests the proposal faces an uphill battle.
But the math on the ground favors the GOP. Democrats have swept House races for decades, and the last two Republican members lost in 1996. A system that forces parties to compete across party lines changes the arithmetic.
The Presidential Comparison
Obama won California in 2012 over Mitt Romney 60%-37%, about the same margin as Kamala Harris’s 2024 win in Massachusetts. That comparison shows how closely the two states track nationally.
It also shows how far Massachusetts has moved from the national average on congressional races. The state has become a one-party stronghold, and Question 3 offers a path back toward competitiveness.
Our View on the Proposal
Clay Tribune supports smaller government and less control over people’s lives. We are for small business and wary of big government and big corporations alike. We believe the right to bear arms is a constitutional right that must not be taken away, and we oppose bans on commonly owned firearms, registries and confiscation schemes.
On this issue, we take the side of openness. A voting system that lets candidates from any party appear on the same ballot is fairer than one that screens candidates by party label. The risk of vote-splitting is real, but it is a risk worth taking to break the grip of a dominant party.
We think Question 3 deserves a yes vote. The current system has produced decades of one-party rule, and a top-two system offers a chance to break it. The risks are real, but so is the reward.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs the north star of individual freedom, small business, and no concentrations of power, and is against treating politics as a horse race between two machines that both gather power. On Question 3, the paper takes the side of openness. A voting system that lets candidates from any party appear on the same ballot is fairer than one that screens candidates by party label. The risk of vote-splitting is real, but it is a risk worth taking to break the grip of a dominant party.
The proposal would force candidates to build broader coalitions across party lines, which matches the paper’s support for small business and its wariness of big government and big corporations. The system has worked elsewhere for over a decade, and Massachusetts already uses a similar approach in local elections. The paper’s north star of no concentrations of power points toward a system that weakens party organizations rather than strengthens them.
The June 2012 California example shows the risk of vote-splitting clearly: a heavily fragmented Democratic field left Rep. Pete Aguilar behind his Republican opponents in a primary. The AFL-CIO and other unions lining up against the change suggest the proposal faces an uphill battle. But the math on the ground favors the GOP, with Democrats having swept House races for decades and the last two Republican members losing in 1996.
Source material: “Proposed Massachusetts voting change could make GOP candidates more competitive,” the Washington Examiner.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.