Published in the Boston Globe, October 21, 2026, as part of the Globe Opinion newsletter Right, Left, and Center. Reprinted with the author’s permission.
Bob Massie is an environmental and social justice advocate from Somerville and an endorser of Question 3.
I am a proud progressive Democrat who has run statewide three times: for lieutenant governor in 1994, briefly for the US Senate in 2011, and for governor in 2018. Though I lost each time, the experience of visiting more than 200 Massachusetts cities and towns during those campaigns allowed me to make friends among voters across the state.
Today I am an elected member of the Democratic State Committee. And it is precisely because of my deep commitment to the party and its values that I support Question 3. Massachusetts Democrats proclaim their commitment to democracy, participation, and accountability, but many have allowed our political process to steadily drift away from those principles.
Like the residents of a home who have not stepped outside to see the roof caving in, many active in politics have lost sight of how broken the system is. Primaries under the current system peak in the summer when most voters aren’t watching: Only 22.7 percent voted this year on the Tuesday before Labor Day. Once the primary is over in Massachusetts, the election usually is, too.
Did you think your vote in November would affect control of Beacon Hill? Sorry! That’s already largely been decided. This November, 113 of 160 House seats (70 percent) and 30 of 40 Senate seats (75 percent) face no general-election opponent. Why would a candidate without an opponent bother to reach out to regular voters when they know they are going to walk into the job?
Though people still mistakenly say Massachusetts is a “Democratic state,” two-thirds of voters are officially “unenrolled” (independent). The number of registered Democrats has been in freefall for decades and now stands at about 24 percent. A system built on shrinking party membership makes less sense with each election.
Watch: Bob on insiders vs. outsiders
Question 3 puts all candidates on one primary ballot open to every voter, with the top two advancing to November. Some Democratic opponents say they fear two Republicans advancing, but many seem afraid that the general election will feature two Democrats.
All-party primaries would also shake up a system so openly secretive, unresponsive and corrupt that even the most well-meaning legislators on Beacon Hill cannot escape it.
The Speaker and Senate President control not only which bills will be considered for passage, but also the compensation that members of committees receive. About three-quarters of legislators receive stipends for posts that leaders can grant or take away. And the money isn’t negligible, adding between $22,000 and $44,000 to a roughly $82,000 base salary. Independence can cost legislators their pay. That’s wrong.
Many liberals tolerate this because Beacon Hill occasionally passes modestly progressive legislation. But major proposals on rent stabilization, plastic pollution, climate change, prison moratoria, immigrant protections, earned sick leave and real estate transfer fees have been strangled or sent to the purgatory of “further study.” It astonishes me that progressive friends, repeatedly crushed while fighting for these changes, now cling to the old system, fearing a new one’s flaws.
Voters keep telling the State House they are frustrated at its closed, often arrogant culture, but are largely ignored. The incessant fight over Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s authority to audit the legislature — approved by nearly 72 percent of voters in 2024 — exposes the same reluctance to yield institutional power.
I am saddened that so many of my committed and generous friends in the Democratic Party no longer notice that the party has largely stalled as a force for serious change. Party platforms are retooled by insiders and then ignored by elected officials. Many local committees have become sparsely attended social clubs that struggle to attract younger members. And who wants to fight hard to enlarge an already overwhelming supermajority by a seat or two on one of these committees?
Open competition could give younger activists a reason to enter politics, supporting candidates with new constituencies and granting the party renewed energy. It might even help the party win the governorship in future elections. Only four out of the last ten contests have gone to Democratic candidates.
The reasoning of Question 3 opponents is simple: They understand the system and know how to play the game, and they would prefer it over one that would dislodge the comfortable and force everyone to innovate.
Ballot initiatives like Question 3 are popular precisely because they let voters act on fundamental problems the current political process avoids. Question 3 will not, by itself, reform the Legislature’s rules, or curb leadership-controlled stipends, or reinvigorate the Democratic Party. But I believe all-party primaries will force an uncomfortable but necessary — and long overdue — reckoning.
——————
Read the full four-writer debate in the Boston Globe, including Yes on 3 chair Danielle Allen’s case for all-party primaries.
Bob Massie is one of a growing list of endorsers that includes former Governors Charlie Baker and Deval Patrick, the NAACP New England Area Conference, and leaders from both parties and neither.
Ready to help? Take action for Question 3, or read what Question 3 does.
