Why Vote No?

1. It’s bought and paid for

Look past the proponents’ slogans and Question 3 is a measure funded by a handful of very wealthy people, most of them from the private-equity world.

We saw the effects of all party primaries in California this year: voters were pressured to abandon their candidate of choice in order to get behind the most well-funded candidates in order to not spoil the election for their party, with a billionaire almost buying his way into the general election.

Billionaires are paying for this ballot question, which will make it easier for billionaires to buy our elections.

2. It’S Bad for democracy

Proponents pitch Question 3 as “more choice” and “more competition.” The result is the opposite. When only two candidates can advance, November’s election can be two people from the same party, and knock every independent and third-party voice off the final ballot. Fewer names in November is not more democracy - it means more control by the wealthy over the outcome.

According to a report by FairVote looking at the first few cycles of Top-Two voting in Washington state, across “three election cycles, almost three-quarters of preliminary races had no competition at all.”

In California since implementation in 2012, only one sitting member of Congress has lost to a challenger of the same party. Here in Massachusetts, despite having over 40 fewer congressional districts, two members of Congress have lost to a challenger in that timeframe.

3. It’s a national experiment, not a Massachusetts idea

Question 3 didn’t grow out of Massachusetts. Its funders run a national project which has spent heavily on trying to run the same question elsewhere, and they have been rejected by voters across the ideological spectrum. We don’t need outside operatives using our ballot as their laboratory.

4. It shuts out independents and small parties

Independent and minor-party candidates often reach voters in the general election, when turnout is highest. Top-Two voting can eliminate them in a low-turnout primary, before most people are even watching. That narrows the field exactly when it should be widest.

5. It doesn’t increase participation

There is no credible report or study that indicates that Top-Two or All-Party Primary elections increase turnout, with reports showing a potential correlative but not causal effect. In California’s first two elections after implementation, primary turnout actually decreased to historic lows. In fact, there is some evidence that turnout in general elections can decrease when the only two candidates running come from the same party.