Assessing the Promise of All-Party Primaries for Massachusetts

American elections are increasingly uncompetitive.

In 2024, roughly 87% of U.S. House races were effectively decided in the primary election, not the general. In 2026, that number is likely to climb above 90%. Similar rates of uncompetitiveness have arisen in state legislative elections and local elections as well.

Across the country—and especially in Massachusetts—general elections often aren’t even contested . In fact, Massachusetts is among the least competitive states in the country, with roughly 64% of state legislative elections from 2014–25 featuring only one candidate, and most others decided in low-turnout primary elections.

When most elections are decided before most voters even participate, something is fundamentally broken.

Let All Voters Decide

One of the clearest ways to restore competition is to adopt all-party primaries. Here's how it works: instead of separate party primaries all candidates run on a single ballot, and all voters—regardless of party—can participate. The top two candidates then advance to the general election.

Massachusetts voters have a chance this November to vote on whether to adopt this system, through a ballot measure led by the Coalition for a Healthy Democracy.

This is not a radical idea. Variations of this system are already used in states like California and Washington, as well as in cities across the country—including Boston. Looking overseas, dozens of democracies use a version of this system, while only two, Argentina and the U.S., have party primaries

Research suggests adopting all-party primaries would make several important improvements to our elections:

More Competition Where It Matters

All-party primaries shift the election of consequence from low-turnout primaries to high-turnout general elections.

That matters because these systems increase general election competition, including by allowing strong same-party challengers to advance. Likewise, all-party primaries dramatically reduce uncontested races; for example, in California, uncontested state legislative primaries fell from about 80% to 20% after the state adopted all-party primaries in 2012.

In a state like Massachusetts, where so many elections are effectively over before November, this shift alone would be transformative.

Broader Participation, Better Representation

Primary reform also changes who participates and who runs.

Research finds that primary reform increases participation by voters of color and raise turnout overall. Moving the decisive election to November makes outcomes more representative of the full electorate.

When it comes to who runs, all-party primaries are also associated with more women running and winning office, including substantial gains for Republican women.

In a state where so many elections are uncompetitive, and roughly 65% of voters are not registered with either major party, these changes matter.

Incentives to Appeal Beyond the Base

When candidates must compete in front of the full electorate, not just a narrow primary base, their incentives change.

Instead of appealing primarily to highly partisan voters, candidates must build broader, more durable coalitions.

There is evidence this can matter a lot. California’s adoption of top-two primaries was followed by a period of reduced ideological extremism among legislators; in fact, California under all-party primaries was one of only five states that experienced an overall decrease in legislative polarization during the 2010s. Louisiana, which has long used a variation of this system, has one of the least polarized state legislatures in the country.

Our partisan primary system incentivizes the toxic polarization and gridlock that drives government shutdowns, failure to address key problems, and an increasingly divided country. We need a better system to encourage better representation, compromise, and functional governance.

The “Helps Billionaires” Accusation Is Patently False

Research also finds that donations from ideological super PACs have a significantly smaller impact on election results in states using all-party primaries compared to partisan primaries. In an election system flooded with dark money donations and unlimited campaign spending, reducing the influence of special interests is crucial to making public officials accountable only to the voters.

These who oppose this reform often talk about expensive campaigns under this system in California. But California is a much larger state with very different rules than Massachusetts. California's individual contribution limits are $11,800 for legislative races and $78,400 for governor. Washington and Alaska are smaller states with much lower contribution limits, more like MA’s, and they haven't seen the same rise in spending under all-party primary systems.

A Fairer System for Voters

All-party primaries also resolve a basic fairness issue embedded in our current system.

Party primaries in Massachusetts (and across the country) are funded by taxpayers. That means public dollars are supporting elections that serve the needs of private entities, the parties, and that many voters cannot meaningfully participate in. All-party primaries fix that by creating a single primary election in which all candidates compete and all voters participate.

This system preserves an important role for parties: parties can still endorse candidates, and those endorsements can appear on the ballot, helping guide voters without restricting choice.

What This Means for Massachusetts

Massachusetts does not lack civic engagement or capable candidates. What it lacks is a system that consistently produces competitive, representative elections.

All-party primaries are not a silver bullet. But they are a proven institutional reform that can increase competition, broaden participation, improve representation, and reduce the outsized influence of narrow electorates and ideological donors.

Right now, Massachusetts is using rules that sideline most voters in the elections that matter most. Changing those rules is a simple and commonsense way to put voters back at the center of our politics.