Table of Contents
By Matt Wilson
When I moved to Medford four years ago, I was excited to experience the city’s politics up close. I landed in the midst of competitive races for mayor, crowded fields for City Council and School Committee, debates, door-knocking, yard signs, and important debates about the future of the city. There were lots of opportunities for voters to hear from candidates and make choices about Medford’s direction. It felt like democracy.
The next fall, I opened my ballot for state elections and found it nearly empty. There was only one candidate each for Congress, State Senate, State Representative, District Attorney and Governor’s Council. And unfortunately that uncompetitive ballot didn’t end up being a fluke.
Since 2016, none of Medford’s three state representatives or its state senator has faced a challenger in November’s general election. In addition, the candidates rarely faced a primary challenger. When there were, the election was effectively over in a low-turnout, summer primary, with the winner becoming the lone default “choice” on the November ballot.
This year is no different. I received my mail-in ballot recently. Of the 12 races on my ballot, five have only one candidate. In the others, Democratic incumbents face little or no realistic competition from the opposing party.
This is not a healthy democracy. And, frankly, it’s pretty boring and uninspiring to fill out my ballot again this year to do my civic duty as a Medford resident.
When politicians don’t have to compete, they don’t have to listen to us. Competition is what gets candidates knocking on doors, answering questions, and making the case for what they would do differently. For years, Massachusetts has ranked at or near the bottom nationally in the number of competitive legislative elections. This November, more than 70% of the races will only have one candidate.
That is why I’m voting Yes on Question 3, the All Party Primary ballot initiative this November. It replaces separate party primaries for state and federal offices with a single preliminary election open to every candidate and every voter. The two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party, advance to November.
In other words, November would once again be an election rather than a formality. If that sounds familiar, it should. It’s how Medford, and other Massachusetts municipalities, already elect its mayor and City Council. Everyone runs together, and voters choose the top candidates to move on to November.
It’s a dynamic, well-understood way of choosing our elected leaders. Why shouldn’t we elect those who represent us on Beacon Hill and in Washington the same way we elect our municipal leaders at Medford City Hall?
Look at the race this summer to succeed State Senator Pat Jehlen. Four strong Democrats ran an active and spirited campaign. But only a fraction of voters turned out for the September 1st primary—during the last week of summer—and Erika Uyterhoeven won with just 37% of the vote. With no opponent in November, she’ll be our next state senator, chosen by just 10% of the district’s voters on September 1.
Under Question 3, she and runner-up Christine Barber – the next-most popular candidate – would have faced off in November, when far more voters turn out. The parties oppose Question 3 because it’s a threat to their gatekeeping power. But we all know their membership numbers are shrinking: 8% of Massachusetts voters are registered Republicans and only 25% are registered Democrats. That leaves 67% unaffiliated. Why should the state political parties decide who the rest of us get to choose from?
Question 3 won’t fix everything on Beacon Hill. But it can do something important: it will give more voters a meaningful choice and give candidates a reason to actually earn our support. That is real democracy.
I want the energy of that first Medford election every time I vote.
Vote Yes on Question 3.
Matt Wilson is a Medford resident.
