10/24/2026
𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗰𝗵𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘁𝘀 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟯: 𝗟𝗮𝘄 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆.
𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 1994 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵?
Back when LAMA was affiliated with the national Libertarian Party, rather than the Liberal Party USA as we are now, I ran in 1994 for Secretary of the Commonwealth as a Libertarian. There were two candidates in the Democratic Party primary, and two candidates in the Republican Party primary. The seat was open, because the long-time Secretary of the Commonwealth, Michael J. Connolly, who had served in that position since 1979, was not running for re-election.
In the Democratic primary, William F. Galvin won with 262,018 votes to Augusto F. Grace’s 148,785. In the Republican primary, Arthur E. Chase won with 97,079 votes to Peter Forman’s 96,362.
The final election was:
William F. Galvin (D): 1,077,506
Arthur E. Chase (R): 813,068
Peter C. Everett (L): 77,584
Voters had a choice between three distinct visions of governance, from a Democrat, a Republican, and a Libertarian.
If Massachusetts had an open primary with a top-two general election, as is proposed by Question 3 in 2026, things would have been very different.
Had there been an open primary where the top two go to the general election, it is safe to say that it would probably have been William F. Galvin (D) and Augusto F. Grace (D) in the general election. Voters would have much less choice, and many would have walked away feeling that the system doesn’t work for them or represent them.
The election of 1994 was the first time that the Libertarian Party achieved legal party recognition in Massachusetts, by getting more than 3% of the votes in a statewide race. This also granted automatic ballot access for the Libertarian presidential ticket, which otherwise would have required gathering 10,000 signatures. So, while I didn’t win, I met my goal of gaining legal status for the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, and a ballot slot for our nominees in the 1996 election, Harry Browne and Jo Jorgensen.
Under Question 3, there is no way for independent candidates to petition their way onto the ballot in the general election. They can only petition for access to the open primary. But, the signature requirements are the same as they were for the general election, 10,000 for President, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General, and 5,000 for Auditor, Secretary, and Treasurer. Massachusetts has some of the most burdensome ballot access requirements in the country.
For independent and third-party candidates, those signatures cost about $25,000-$50,000, and currently get them a spot on the general election ballot. Under Question 3 it will get them nothing. They are very unlikely to appear in the general election, and getting over 3% in an open primary with 5 candidates is much more difficult than getting 3% in a 3-way general election.
People who have studied the dysfunction in our elections, with spoiler candidates, preference falsification, unpopular winners, and perverse incentives towards extremes, have overwhelming recommended ranked-choice voting, in which the top 4, 5, or 6 candidates from an open primary with low ballot access thresholds, compete by RCV in the general election. Alaska has a top-4 RCV system, for example.
In a lopsided state like Massachusetts, the top-two system turns the general election into a contest between two Democrats most of the time. Independent, third-party, and even Republican candidates will not even run because it will just be wasted time and expense to be turned away before the general election. The Liberal, Green, Libertarian, and other third-parties will never get party recognition, and have much more difficulty getting their candidate for President on the ballot.
Even if open primaries are a good idea, a top-2 system amplifies the dysfunction in our elections by increasing the incentive to vote for the “lesser evil” candidate who has a chance in the final over the voter’s genuine preference, and by making voters feel even more alienated from their government on the day of the general election. This is exactly what voters in California and Washington have experienced, with the expected problems of a state government that feels less accountable to the voters.
Vote NO on 3.
