Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is Question 3 about?

A: This question asks Massachusetts voters whether to replace our current voting system of electing party nominees, with a “jungle primary” also known as Top-Two Non-Partisan Primaries, in which candidates from all parties run against each other in September, and only the top two vote-getters advance to the general election in November. A “NO” vote would keep in place our current primary system.

Q: Is this ranked choice voting?

A: No, jungle primaries do not allow voters to rank candidates, and they introduce many of the problems that Ranked Choice Voting solves. Top-two jungle primaries still run the risk of spoiler candidates and vote-splitting between like-minded candidates, and also can incentivize gaming of the system by wealthy dark money donors. Switching our elections to Top-Two All-Party Primaries would also likely make it more difficult to pass RCV through a future ballot measure, as observed in California which uses Top-Two statewide.

Q: Doesn’t this give independent voters a voice they don’t have now?

A: No, because independent voters in Massachusetts already have that voice. If you’re unenrolled, you can walk into your polling place on primary day and choose either party’s primary ballot. You are not locked out of anything. Question 3 doesn’t open a door that’s closed; it tears the whole house down to fix a window that already opens.

Q: Massachusetts already uses top-two for city elections. Why not statewide?

A: Local races and state or federal races just aren’t the same. Municipal elections are the closest you can get to the voters. State and federal elections are organized around parties for a reason, it gives voters a clear, reliable signal about what a candidate stands for. Copying a city-council format onto a U.S. Senate race doesn’t modernize anything, it just strips away information voters use.

Q: Isn’t this the same reform that passed in California and Alaska?

A: It’s the same family of idea, and the record is mixed at best. Where it’s been tried, it hasn’t delivered the better politics it promised, and in 2024 voters in multiple states rejected new versions of it, sometimes by wide margins, even when the backers vastly outspent the opposition.

We also saw the direct issues with this election format in California, where there were multiple candidates from one ideology, and two from a different ideology, and there was pressure on voters and donors to get behind the one candidate who had the best funding. The end result was the two best funded candidates made it through to the general, and third place was a self funded billionaire.

Q: Won’t this reduce negative partisanship?

A: There’s no good evidence it does. What it reliably does is make the early, low-turnout primary the decisive race, which rewards the candidates who can spend the most, the soonest. That’s not a cure for our politics. It’s an advantage for big money.

Q: Who’s behind the No campaign?

A: A coalition of Massachusetts voters, the state Democratic committee, organized labor, and community organizations who looked behind the curtain at who’s funding Question 3 and what it actually does, and decided to fight it. Find our full list of endorsing organizations on our Coalition page here.

Q: How do I vote?

A: Look for Question 3 on your November 3, 2026 ballot (it might be on the reverse side of the page) and vote NO. You can vote early, by mail, or in person.