Short answer: Question 3 is not ranked choice voting, and it doesn’t stand in the way of it. All-party primaries and ranked choice voting (RCV) are compatible reforms with distinct and complementary benefits. All-party primaries move the decisive election in Massachusetts state and federal races to November, when most people vote and the electorate is more diverse. Ranked choice voting has its own well-documented benefits. The goals reinforce each other, and the two reforms can be combined.

Question 3 doesn’t touch local elections or local RCV efforts

Question 3 applies to state and federal elections only. It changes nothing about how cities and towns run their elections. Every home rule petition, every local RCV campaign, every study committee proceeds exactly as before. Many members of our coalition are strong supporters of the effort to bring ranked choice voting to municipal elections around the state. Acton, Amherst, Arlington, Bedford, Boston, Brookline, Concord, Lexington, Northampton, and Salem have all voted for RCV and are waiting on the Legislature to let them use it.

The two efforts also solve different problems. Municipal RCV reformers are improving nonpartisan local elections. All-party primaries make sure the broader, more diverse general-election electorate makes the decisive choice in state and federal races. Progress on one is not in competition with the other. With more electoral accountability on Beacon Hill, we may well see more movement on granting home-rule petitions.

For state and federal races, the two reforms fit together

Ranked choice voting can be added to an all-party primary system in two ways:

  • RCV in the general election. Alaska pairs an all-party primary (top four) with a ranked choice general election, and shows the model works. The Boston RCV effort has pursued this path.
  • RCV inside the primary itself. Seattle has adopted ranked choice voting within its all-candidate top-two primary and will use it for the first time in 2027.

Nothing in Question 3 forecloses either choice for Massachusetts. That decision remains, as it should, with voters. The Coalition for Healthy Democracy takes no position on adding RCV to all-party primaries, and our coalition includes RCV supporters. Supporting Question 3 is not choosing between reforms.

Why the two reforms couldn’t be one ballot question

In 2023, a combined petition for a top-five all-party primary plus a ranked choice general election was submitted to the Attorney General. Her office declined to certify it under Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which requires that a ballot initiative contain only related or mutually dependent subjects. The Attorney General found that the two reforms cannot be tied together in a single ballot question.

The Coalition designed Question 3 with a potential RCV future in mind. With all-party primaries in place in Massachusetts, it would become legally feasible to run and win a top-four ranked choice ballot measure, should voters decide to pursue that.

Related: How Question 3 works · Is Question 3 ranked choice voting? · Is Question 3 a “jungle primary”?

Make your representative work for your vote. Vote YES on Question 3 — sign up to help.