Inclusive Politics, Responsible Competition

The Case for All-Party Primaries in Massachusetts

For too many voters, Election Day feels like exclusion. This is especially true in Massachusetts, where we have the country’s fewest contested elections.

As in many states, voters here are concerned with the direction of housing, jobs, and democracy itself. But when 68% of voters went to the polls in 2024’s November general election, most pulled a ballot like mine: No contested races for seats in the State House. Primaries are more decisive, but the voter experience is equally grim there. In 2024, my primary ballot had only one choice for each legislative race; the same was true for 173 of the state’s 200 districts. That’s a competitiveness crisis: Most voters go to the polls only to find an empty formality.

In the few competitive primaries, voters encounter a second crisis: The races are illegible. These elections often draw five or six candidates from the same party, most with low name recognition and little additional information on the ballot. Each represents coalitions and ideological commitments that define the stakes of the race—but voters have no way of seeing that in the voting booth. And when the few impactful decisions are this hard to decipher, it’s no wonder that primary turnout is so low: Just 17% in 2024. Less than a fifth of the voters make the decision.

These twin crises—low competition and low legibility—mean that Massachusetts systematically disempowers voters from deciding our future. The Commonwealth likes to think of itself as a leader in American democracy, but we cannot claim that mantle while relegating decisions to legislative backrooms, party committees, and low-turnout primaries instead of the broader electorate. Fixing that dynamic means fixing our primaries.

The competition fix is straightforward: Shift power from the low-turnout primary to the general election, where most people vote. All-Party Primaries replace separate partisan primaries with a single, all-party ballot on which every candidate appears—regardless of party—and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election. In Massachusetts, voters in most districts overwhelmingly prefer Democrats, which means that the real decision currently happens in the Democratic primary, not the general election. On the new model, many of our general elections would pit two Democrats against each other. Candidates would need to engage the whole electorate at both stages, and all voters would get a real choice in November.

But enacted alone, this fix can put voters in the same kind of low-information environment we know from our current primaries. For most voters, a candidate’s party affiliation is the most helpful cue on the ballot to guide their decision. But what happens when that real choice in November is between candidates who share the same party? All-party primaries will often produce a general election between two co-partisans, who will differ not in their party label but in coalition support or policy preferences. A voter might see two Democrats on the ballot—but if she cannot see that one has DSA’s backing and the other has Abundance, or that one leans progressive and the other leans moderate, her choice will be murkier.

California shows what that kind of information vacuum looks like. Its Top Two primaries reliably yield elections with multiple Democrats at both stages. The general elections are more competitive as a result, but voters lack reliable cues on the ballot to distinguish among co-partisan candidates, making it harder to choose the candidate who best represents them. In high-stakes races, that can lead to fractured fields where paid advertising fills the gap. This year’s gubernatorial contest, with eight Democrats struggling to differentiate themselves in an incredibly expensive primary, is the predictable result.

That is why the Massachusetts All-Party Primaries initiative gives voters a more informed choice by adding aggregate fusion voting. Under fusion, any political organization with 50 registered voters can make ballot-visible endorsements—and the candidate can show all those endorsements on the ballot. For voters, that means walking into the booth and seeing at a glance which candidates have support from trusted groups. A union endorsement could show voters where labor stands; the same is true for any issue group or community organization. The endorsement functions as a free campaign mailer, countering the power of big money by allowing community organizations to reach the voters more easily. In practice, this kind of mechanism will most advantage groups that voters already trust.

When introduced together, All-Party Primaries and aggregate fusion voting create an election system that empowers voters by moving decisions out of closed venues and onto the ballot, while also giving them the tools they need to understand the stakes of the race.

A fictitious sample fusion ballot.

Consider the possibilities for state legislative races in Gateway Cities like Springfield. Already, labor unions, faith networks, tenant associations, business coalitions, and individual leaders compete for influence within Democratic politics. Today, that happens in low-turnout primaries that push organizations toward quiet endorsement processes and expensive mail campaigns. Under the All-Party Primaries initiative, each group could instead earn a ballot designation and make its endorsements visible to the general electorate. Grassroots groups would have as much power to do this as a major union or the Chamber of Commerce—and their outsize influence in electing candidates would translate into real electoral mandates. Over time, they could start to see small but growing caucuses of legislators elected with their visible endorsement.

---

At my organization, Partners in Democracy-MA Action, our goal is to build a democracy where all of us are empowered to shape our future, one defined by responsible competition in which candidates succeed by building broad support for their vision—not by working the insider system. At its base, that is a project of inclusion. Americans deserve the dignity of real choice and the trust to make that choice in public, together. It requires us to stop accepting convenient exclusion and instead put our faith in each other.

For me, that conviction comes from family experience. I grew up in the same house as my grandfather, a son of immigrants who worked as a waiter at Boston’s Copley Plaza hotel for most of his life. Early in his career, he was waiting on a pair of powerful guests who called him to their table to quiz him on politics. When he didn’t know an answer, one turned to the other in high satisfaction: “See, that’s why we get to make the decisions.”

My grandfather (far right) at the Copley Plaza Hotel.

My grandfather was a proud person. For the rest of his life, he spent every morning reading the Boston Globe from cover to cover. He always knew about current events. And because I lived in the same house as him, I grew up reading the Globe on his lap. I only learned why after he died.

My grandfather didn’t have the opportunities his work earned for me. None of my grandparents did. And none of them would have voted exactly as I do, nor shared my opinions on every issue. But I know that each of them deserved the dignity to be let in the rooms where decisions were made about their communities. Democracy should be for them as much as it is for the best-informed advocates who attend every meeting, canvass for voters, and understand the power of primaries.

Our democracy breeds cynicism by writing most voters off. A better tomorrow starts by demanding elections that honor their voices. Massachusetts can take the initiative by restoring power to the general electorate and giving them the tools they need to make informed choices. The first step is replacing our partisan primaries, which can only drive power into the hands of the few.

Progress cannot start with exclusion. All-Party Primaries will give all voters the power to see and shape our shared future together.