Why do political insiders fear giving voters more choices?

Disclaimer:

Cambridge Day does not endorse candidates or positions. Views expressed in this column are those of the writer.

Massachusetts politicians love talking about democracy. They love reminding voters how sacred the process is, how important participation is, and how deeply they value every voice.

Then a reform comes along that might give voters more competition and more meaningful choices, and suddenly everyone in the political class starts clutching their pearls. It’s so typical.

In November, Massachusetts voters will be asked whether they want to adopt an important reform to our election system by approving Question 3, which would institute all-party primaries in state elections and races for congressional offices. Under the proposal, all candidates for an office would appear on one primary ballot, regardless of party, and the top two vote-getters would advance to the general election.

Maybe you love that idea. Maybe you do not. There are fair arguments to have about how it would work, what it would change, and whether Massachusetts should move away from traditional party primaries. The most important point is simple: voters should get to decide. Whether they would be able to do so was in question until June, when the Supreme Judicial Court rejected an effort by two Democratic Party insiders to have the measure thrown off the ballot.

The opposition from insiders has been very telling. Both major parties have reasons to feel uncomfortable about this proposal, and honestly, that may be the best argument for taking it seriously. Party insiders like systems they understand, control, and benefit from. They like predictable primaries, protected incumbents, and races where the real decision is made before most voters are even paying attention.

The problem is that the current system is not working for many voters. Massachusetts has some of the least competitive elections in the country. Roughly three in five legislative races this cycle have only one candidate on the ballot. In a state that loves lecturing everyone else about democracy, too many voters show up to find what amounts to a very expensive coronation.

That is not healthy, and it is certainly not surprising that the people who benefit from it would prefer to leave it exactly as it is. When elected officials do not have to compete, they do not have to listen. They do not have to defend their records. They do not have to explain why housing is unaffordable, why families are leaving, why taxes keep climbing or why Beacon Hill seems allergic to basic accountability. They can simply survive another cycle, smile for the picture, and carry on.

All-party primaries would not magically fix every problem in Massachusetts politics. No ballot question can do that. But the proposal puts forward a question worth asking: What would happen if more voters were brought into the process earlier and more candidates had to actually earn support?

As the former Massachusetts Republican Party chair, I understand the concerns about weakening party identity or changing the traditional path to the general election. Parties matter. Clear political differences matter. Voters should know what candidates believe and what they stand for. But parties should serve voters, not the other way around.

Too often, our current system seems designed around the comfort of insiders instead of the needs of the public. Massachusetts has a huge number of unenrolled voters, frustrated taxpayers, young families, small business owners, and residents who feel politically homeless. They do not fit neatly into the boxes political professionals keep trying to preserve, which is probably why the professionals get annoyed by them.

If an incumbent is doing a great job, wonderful. That person should have no trouble making the case to voters. If a challenger has better ideas, voters should get to hear them. If two Democrats, two Republicans, or two candidates with no party label earn the most votes in an all-party primary, voters can make the final call in November. That is not chaos. That is competition. There is a difference, even if Beacon Hill sometimes acts confused.

The funniest part of this debate is watching insiders pretend their concern is really about protecting voters. Voters are perfectly capable of hearing arguments, comparing candidates, and deciding what kind of system they want. The real fear is not that voters will be confused. The real fear is that voters might finally have more choices.

This November, Massachusetts voters can decide whether our elections are working for them, or whether they are mostly working for the people already in power.

No wonder the insiders are worried.

Jennifer Nassour is the co-founder of the Pocketbook Project, host of the Political Contessa podcast, and former chair of the Massachusetts Republican Party.

This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.