Table of Contents
Our upcoming election includes ballot question 3 to eliminate separate party primaries and, instead, have all candidates combined on one ballot; the top two vote-getters in the primary then would advance to the general election.
I'm open to revising our election process if it leads to fairer outcomes. If this question were about ranked choice voting, I'd be wholly in support. But I fear that jungle primaries, as non-party primaries are called, could lead to negative unintended consequences.
Consider our recent primary election for the House seat vacated by Seth Moulton. In a healthy expression of democracy, numerous, diverse candidates ran on the Democratic ballot. While that provided voters with a lot of choice, it meant that the Democratic ballot votes were split between all those candidates so that each candidate got fewer votes than if there had been only one or two candidates as on the Republican ballot.
My main concern with jungle primaries is how vote-splitting can lead to less popular candidates being elected. Indications from other states with jungle primaries, California and Washington, are that in some communities multiple candidates split the vote, resulting in two candidates supported by a smaller constituency winning the primary and going on to the final election. The intended benefit of greater diversity of winners just didn't happen.
Finally, the ballot question's sponsors claim that switching to all-party primaries "will bring accountability and transparency" through greater competition. I fail to see how. In fact, jungle primaries could lead to less choice in the general election with two candidates from the same party. On the other hand, voters who want greater competition and fairer outcomes should push for ranked choice voting in the future, and they should vote No on ballot question 3 this fall.
Kate Borten,
Martin Terrace
