Top-two primaries would cause more problems than they solve

On November 3, voters across the Commonwealth will decide whether or not to make sweeping changes to our election system. If passed, Question 3 would replace political party primaries with a so-called “top two primary” in which all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, would appear on a single ballot. The two candidates receiving the most votes would advance to the general election.

The measure was put on the ballot by the Coalition for a Healthy Democracy, founded by Harvard political science professor Danielle Allen. The group argues the current system favors political insiders and results in elections decided by low turnout primaries rather than the general election, which better represents the will of the electorate. They assert their system would increase voter turnout, the viability of third parties, and the power of the 63 percent of voters who are not enrolled in a party.

There is no question our elections are in need of reform and the stated goals of Question 3 are laudable. However, there is limited evidence that top two primaries will achieve these goals and a risk they will cause new problems and exacerbate existing ones.

California and Washington already have top two primaries and voters in several states have recently rejected the idea. One study from California found that, while turnout has increased in primary elections, it has actually decreased in the general. This is especially the case when two candidates from the same party advance to the general, as can happen when multiple candidates from one party split the vote. Since California started using the new system in 2012, there have been 40 same-party general election races.

This helps explain why many voting rights organizations are opposed to Question 3 and are focusing their time and resources on passing Election Day Registration (Question 4). Activists like Jordan Berg Powers, former Executive Director of the Mass Alliance, believe the backers of Question 3 have an academic view of electoral campaigns and greatly underestimate the influence of corporate interests and the donor class.

In a top two primary, there is a great deal of pressure on candidates not seen as “viable” to drop out to reduce risk of vote splitting. Since viability is typically a proxy for ability to fundraise, the system favors candidates who are self-funded or have strong backing from wealthy donors and corporate PACs. This disfavors historically underrepresented groups, working class candidates, and the political outsiders, just the kind of candidates the “Yes on 3” campaign says it wants to help.

Proponents of Question 3 seem blithely unconcerned about the corrupting influence of money on elections. Their own fundraising gives a good sense of what campaigns will look like should their measure pass. As noted in a recent article in Commonwealth/Beacon, Coalition for Healthy Democracy “has collected nearly $5.2 million from donations and in-kind contributions, much of it from wealthy private-equity figures.” Many of these funders have financial interests in changing the election rules that have little to do with creating a healthier democracy.

There is another irony to Question 3. While it would do away with party primaries, it would leave political parties in place. The measure actually anticipates the parties making official endorsements of candidates, but by party leaders instead of rank and file members in an open election. In the name of limiting the power of party insiders, the measure would do away with a system created during the Progressive Era to take power away from political bosses.

Our election system is in need of reform. We need more competitive races, higher voter turnout, and less incumbency protection. But there are better solutions that would not increase the influence of concentrated wealth. In addition to Election Day Registration, we could adopt Ranked Choice Voting, a new Clean Elections Law to provide public financing of campaigns, and “use it or lose it” rules that limit the ability of incumbents to amass huge war chests.

Whatever the specifics, democratic renewal has to come from the people, not a handful of wealthy donors. It will have to come from ordinary folks knocking on doors, talking to their neighbors, and building a grassroots movement for change.