Table of Contents
By Al Ozonoff
Matt Wilson makes a compelling case that Massachusetts has a problem with political competition. Too many elected officials run unopposed, too many elections are decided in low-turnout primaries, and too many voters feel they have no meaningful choice on Election Day.
As a third-party candidate for statewide office, I share his frustration, and I believe Massachusetts needs more competitive elections and greater accountability from its elected officials. However, I question whether the changes proposed in Question 3 would accomplish those goals.
Question 3 would replace party primaries with a single preliminary election in which all candidates compete, regardless of party affiliation. The two candidates receiving the most votes would advance to November.
There are potential benefits to this approach. In districts dominated by one party, it could produce competitive general elections between two candidates who might otherwise have faced each other in a primary. More voters would have the opportunity to participate in that final contest.
But there is an important tradeoff: only two candidates would appear on the November ballot, even if both belonged to the same political party.
For voters who support independent candidates or smaller political parties, that distinction really matters. A Libertarian, Green, or independent candidate could build substantial grassroots support, qualify for the primary ballot, and still be eliminated before November. Voters would lose the opportunity to consider those alternatives in the general election, when participation is typically highest.
I know firsthand the obstacles facing candidates outside the major parties. This year, my campaign and its volunteers collected more than 5,500 certified signatures from over 100 Massachusetts communities to qualify for the state auditor ballot. Collecting those signatures, meeting filing deadlines, and building a campaign without established political infrastructure required considerable effort. Despite the challenges, our collective effort earned us the opportunity to compete before voters in November.
Under Question 3, qualifying for the ballot would be just the beginning. Candidates who successfully navigate the nomination process would then need to finish first or second in a preliminary election simply to reach November voters.
Wilson also argues that the major political parties should not determine which candidates the public may consider, and I agree with that principle. But an all-party primary does not eliminate the advantages of established political organizations. Their fundraising networks, name recognition, and campaign infrastructure would remain important, particularly when every candidate must compete in the same preliminary election.
The disagreement is not about whether Massachusetts needs reform, because we all agree that it does. The real question is how we define meaningful electoral competition.
A contest between two candidates can be competitive without representing the full range of political views held by voters. Likewise, a general election featuring several political perspectives can offer meaningful choice even when one candidate is strongly favored.
Massachusetts voters deserve an electoral system that encourages competition, holds incumbents accountable, and makes room for independent voices. Reforms that lower barriers to ballot access and expand political participation deserve serious consideration alongside proposals to change the primary system.
More competitive elections and more meaningful choices are both worthwhile goals. As voters consider Question 3, they should weigh whether making some November contests more competitive justifies limiting every general-election ballot to two candidates.
Al Ozonoff is a Medford resident and the Libertarian candidate for Massachusetts state auditor in the 2026 election.
