A polling location in Ward 19 on Massachusetts's primary day, 2026. (Emily Glick/CommonWealth Beacon)

HOUSE SPEAKER Ron Mariano says Question 3, which would replace party nomination primaries with a single first round that includes all candidates, is “being targeted by a small group of individuals with a lot of money.”

“They’re all investment bankers. They want a way to get more Republicans elected, and this is a much better way,” he said, echoing the No on 3 campaign’s claim that “billionaires are paying for this ballot question, which will make it easier for billionaires to buy our elections.”

The professional politicians of both parties use this argument as a smokescreen because they really don’t want to change the undemocratic, noncompetitive system that keeps them in office for decades without fear of being voted out.

The No on 3 campaign supports ranked-choice voting as a better alternative to all-party primaries. Left unsaid is the fact that the 2020 ballot question to bring ranked-choice voting to Massachusetts, which was defeated, also received six-figure contributions from wealthy donors — for precisely the same reason today’s all-party primary has received such funding: because winning a ballot measure that the political establishment opposes requires financial support from anyone with deep pockets.

The Speaker of the Massachusetts House rivals the governor as the most powerful elected official in the state, yet Speaker Mariano got into the Legislature by winning just 223 more votes than his opponent in a special primary election 35 years ago in the small sliver of the state made up by his Quincy-based district.

Since then, he has never faced a significant opponent, and in almost all of his 36 elections he was completely unopposed, as is the case again this year. When the previous Speaker retired in 2020, Mariano, the loyal deputy, was rubber-stamped without opposition.

With his control of committee assignments and the huge annual stipends they bring, the Speaker has unassailable control of members’ votes since he controls their pay. Like most Massachusetts incumbents, Mariano racks up huge donations year after year, building up his war chest, all while running unopposed.

No wonder he wants things to stay the way they are.

The premise of the No on Question 3 argument, that competing in both September and November is an unfair burden, treats the general electorate as an inconvenience to be avoided. In Massachusetts, you can count the legislative seats truly contested between Democrats and Republicans on one hand. While voters show up in November for marquee statewide races like governor, the vast majority skip low-turnout September primaries—the contests that actually decide who holds power on Beacon Hill for decades. Question 3 simply demands that lawmakers earn the votes of the entire electorate.

Today, when challengers dare to take on an entrenched insider, they sometimes come close, only to hit a sudden-death wall: the partisan primary.

This year, state Sen. Will Brownsberger had an opponent for the first time in 14 years. He drastically outspent his challenger, Daniel Lander, but survived the Democratic primary by only 35 votes.

Lander would have been a highly competitive candidate in the higher-turnout November election, but he had no path forward. Instead, Brownsberger will now cruise to re-election in the general election, facing only token opposition from an unenrolled candidate. Under Question 3, a challenger doing unexpectedly well in the first round would advance to the general election, earning free media, new money, and volunteer energy.

Opponents claim that Question 3 could prevent a favored party from having any candidates in the general election, but data from California and Washington show that “lockouts” (where a majority-party coalition is shut out entirely because of vote fragmentation) are rare.

By contrast, we have the far more common problem of vote splitting in open seat elections. More than 40 percent of open seat elections for the Massachusetts Legislature result in a winner being elected who received a minority of votes in the crucial election. US Rep. Jake Auchincloss came to power via a 9-candidate primary, winning just 22.4 percent of the vote. Similarly, US Rep. Lori Trahan prevailed in a 10-candidate field in 2018 with just 21.7 percent.

Question 3 addresses this minority winner problem by sending the top two candidates in an all-candidate primary to the higher-turnout election in November, rather than letting a 25 percent primary winner cruise to victory without significant opposition in November, build a war chest, and stay in office for decades.

What about third parties? They don’t have a chance under the current rules. It was more than 100 years ago, in 1917, that a third-party candidate last won a seat in the Massachusetts Legislature.

Yet Democratic Party operatives used a specious concern for Libertarian Party and Green Party candidates as a pretense in a challenge they filed that sought to prevent voters from even considering all-party primaries. The Supreme Judicial Court unanimously swatted down this argument aimed at keeping Question 3 off the ballot. The court ruled that the proposed law is a legitimate regulation of elections that treats candidates and parties fairly, referring to its 1908 decision that upheld the identical system used in municipal elections.

Question 3 would actually benefit third parties by including their endorsement of a candidate on the first-round ballot—unlike the current system, where candidates in the primary can only list public offices held. Under Question 3, an endorsement requires the consent of both the party and the candidate. Third parties could develop a meaningful brand name that would provide voters cues to counteract the domination of the incumbents.

Although incumbents would still dominate, the best evidence that Question 3 would make them more vulnerable is the steadfast opposition of almost all politicians who would be affected by the changes.

Question 3 moves the final decision from the elections that most people ignore to the ones that have high participation, fixes the plurality winner problem of open-seat primaries, and empowers small parties by giving them a way to build a meaningful brand.

Some progressives say that Question 3 is a plot to enable the right wing, while some MAGA supporters claim that it is designed to cement Democratic domination. Neither is true. By moving the contest to the November election with vastly more participation, all-party primaries will help election outcomes better reflect the wishes of the citizens of each electoral district. After approving Question 3, we could improve the system by approving ranked-choice voting, which would also allow for consolidation of the current two stages into a single, high-turnout general election.

On November 3, the current system ensures you almost certainly can’t vote out entrenched members of the Legislature or its leadership. But by voting yes on Question 3, voters can finally change the rules of the game and reclaim their voice.

Paul Schimek is a transportation planner and data analyst based in Arlington. He is writing a book tracing America’s political dysfunction to its unusual regulation of political parties, starting with the 1888 Massachusetts ballot law.