Frequently Asked Questions about the Coalition for Healthy Democracy and the All-Party Primaries
Q: Why did you start this campaign for All-Party Primaries?
A: Massachusetts has the least competitive elections in the nation—over half of all races go uncontested, leaving millions of voters without a real choice. Our goal is simple: make our democracy more healthy with open, fair and accountable elections.
All-Party Primaries restore accountability and participation by opening the process to all voters, regardless of party, adding fairness to our system.
Q: Where can I read the full text of the ballot initiative?
A: Initiative 25-12 is the number for All-Party Primaries. The official ballot summary (what will appear on the ballot) is here. The full text of the initiative (the statutory language) is here.
Q: Who is behind this campaign and how is it funded?
A: The Coalition for Healthy Democracy is a Massachusetts-based nonprofit made up of civic leaders, educators, and reform advocates from across the political spectrum. We are supported by small donors and philanthropic partners who share a commitment to fair, open elections.
Our finances are fully transparent and disclosed through the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF). This campaign is led and funded by Massachusetts residents who believe in a more accountable government.
Q: Why do we need this change?
A: Between 2014 and 2024, Massachusetts held 1,335 elections for offices that would be covered by this reform:
- 52% (696 races) were completely uncontested.
- 145 more were effectively decided in low-turnout primaries.
As a result, nearly three-quarters of voters were denied a meaningful choice.
Massachusetts ranks last in the nation for legislative competitiveness. The All-Party Primary restores real choice and accountability.
Q: How will this reform affect independent voters, and why do they need it?
A: Voters unenrolled in a major political party —often called “independents” or “unenrolled”—make up the majority of Massachusetts voters: about 65% of all registered voters. Yet under our current system, they face structural disadvantages.
Unenrolled voters can’t vote in a primary for candidates in either party; they must temporarily “pick a party” each time they want to participate. Many find this confusing or alienating, and as a result, they turn out at much lower rates than registered Democrats (26% of voters) and Republicans (8% of voters). (Source)
Unenrolled voters also look different from the partisan electorate: they’re younger and more diverse. Among voters under 34, more than three-quarters are unenrolled. Among voters of color, over 70% are unenrolled.
The All-Party Primary ends this barrier by putting all candidates on one ballot for all voters. Unenrolled voters will no longer have to “pick a party” to participate; they’ll be able to vote freely for any candidate. That gives them equal power in choosing who represents them and ensures that elected officials answer to the full public—not just to partisan insiders.
Q: Won’t the political parties fight back? Will they allow this to happen?
A: The All-Party Primary is a citizen-initiated ballot question—we the voters will decide whether to make this change.
It will change how parties operate: under the All-Party Primary, voters—not party officials—determine who appears on the ballot. Today, candidates for statewide office must secure at least 15% of the vote at a party convention just to qualify for their party’s primary ballot—a rule that often limits who can run and who voters ever get to consider.
In the All-Party Primary, every qualified candidate appears on the same ballot, regardless of party endorsement. Parties will still play an important role—endorsing candidates, organizing supporters, and helping voters make informed choices—but they will no longer control ballot access.
This reform ensures that voters, not party insiders, decide which candidates advance to November.
Q: How will this affect independent and minor-party candidates?
A: The All-Party Primary levels the playing field for independent and smaller-party candidates. Under current rules, minor parties and their candidates face high hurdles. This reform:
- Places all candidates—major party, minor party, and independent—on a single ballot, open to all voters.
- Makes it easier for political designations to become official political parties.
- Allows any party or designation to endorse candidates, with those endorsements appearing directly on the ballot (if accepted).
This gives voters more information and smaller parties more visibility and opportunity.
Q: Is this the same as Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV)?
A: No. All-Party Primaries does not contain ranking. The All-Party Primary is a single primary (instead of a Democratic and a Republican primary) but you vote for only one candidate. The top two candidates go on to the general election, regardless of party.
Q: Does this help or hurt any one party?
A: No. The All-Party Primary doesn’t favor Democrats, Republicans, or any other party—it favors voters. Progressive candidates likely to win in progressive districts, moderates in moderate districts and conservatives in conservative ones. The difference is that every voter can participate, and candidates must appeal to a majority of their district.
Q: Will Republicans become “kingmakers” in Democratic districts—or vice versa?
A: No. The largest group of Massachusetts voters are unenrolled, making up more than 60% of the electorate. Unenrolled voters are more diverse and younger than the party-primary electorate. In competitive races, unenrolled voters—not partisan activists—will be the deciding voices.
Q: Doesn’t this system just elect moderates?
A: No. The All-Party Primary doesn’t favor any ideology—it favors candidates who can build broad coalitions and appeal to their communities. Progressive districts will probably elect progressives; moderate districts will probably elect moderates and conservative districts will probably elect conservatives. What changes is that candidates must earn support from all voters, not just those in one party.
Q: Will this silence alternative voices or grassroots movements?
A: No. In fact, it evens the playing field. All candidates—progressive, moderate, conservative, or independent—can run and campaign until the September primary. The difference is that every voter gets to see every candidate on one ballot. Candidates with fresh ideas often gain more attention when the entire electorate is paying attention, not just a partisan base.
Q: Isn’t keeping small, low-turnout primaries the best way for Progressives (or Conservatives, Libertarians, etc.) to win?
A: Some activists believe closed primaries help their faction by mobilizing a small, ideologically aligned base. But that often leads to candidates who are more extreme than their voters and limits participation.
Our philosophy is this: every voter deserves a meaningful vote in every election. The All-Party Primary doesn’t advantage any ideology—it advantages accountability. Candidates who are most persuasive to their districts will still win, but they’ll do so by earning the trust of all voters.
Q: Could too many candidates from one party split the vote and allow two from the other party to advance?
A: In theory yes, two candidates from a party that is a minority in the district could end up in the general election, but it almost never happens. Across more than 1,000 Top-Two elections in California and Washington, this outcome occurred only twice—and neither winner was re-elected. And we have two safeguards in our All-Party Primary: political parties can put an endorsement on the ballot (an important signal to reduce vote-splitting) and there is a write-in option in the general election.
The real crisis isn’t vote-splitting—it’s the lack of competition. In Massachusetts, 52% of races are uncontested. A one-candidate election isn’t a democratic election.
Q: In the Top-Two system, can the second-place primary finisher win in the general election?
A: Yes—and that’s a strength! There are numerous times when the runner-up of the primary will win in November because the broader, more diverse, higher-turnout general electorate preferred them when they campaigned in the general election. That’s democracy working as intended: the candidate who appeals to more voters wins.
Q: Will this system confuse voters?
A: No. The ballot will look familiar—voters choose one candidate per race, and the top two advance. Massachusetts voters already use a similar system for local offices like mayor and municipal elections.
Q: Will All-Party Primaries increase voter turnout?
A: Yes. Unenrolled voters—65% of the electorate—are currently forced to “pick a party” to vote in primaries, and they turn out at much lower rates. All-Party Primaries let them vote freely, which increases participation and diversity. Studies show open, nonpartisan primaries produce higher turnout in both the primary and general election.
Q: Will this let candidates with the most money win every election?
A: No. Massachusetts already has strict campaign-finance limits and a relatively small population, which keeps politics grassroots and personal. In Top-Two elections, money doesn’t determine outcomes—candidates who can’t build broad coalitions lose, even with big budgets. Boston’s Mayoral elections are a good example of this.
If overall campaign spending rises, it’s because more elections are competitive – because candidates have a fair shot and more voters are engaged. That’s a healthy sign of competition, not corruption.
Q: How will the Governor and Lieutenant Governor races work in the All-Party Primary?
A: Under the current system, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor run separately in their party primaries and then are combined into a “ticket” for the general election.
In the All-Party Primary, those “tickets” of Governor and Lieutenant Governor would form before the primary, and all voters would choose among in the primary. This ensures that each ticket represents a genuine partnership—two leaders who have chosen to work together from the start.
This approach of forming a ticket before the primary is already used in states like Maryland, Illinois, and Alaska. Under the All-Party Primary it opens new possibilities for “unity tickets,” where a Governor and Lieutenant Governor from different parties can run together. It’s another way the All-Party Primary expands choice for voters while ensuring candidates are ready to govern collaboratively.
Q: Can you tell me more about how this will change the landscape for minor parties like the Forward Party, Libertarians and Green Party?
A: It will give voters more choice without creating “spoilers” in our elections. The All-Party Primary levels the playing field for all candidates—major party, minor party, and independent alike—and even makes it easier for political designations to become official parties.
In Massachusetts, only the Democratic and Republican Parties are currently recognized as “major parties.” Other groups—such as the Forward Party, Libertarian Party, Green-Rainbow Party, and Working Families Party—are “political designations” and face high barriers to gaining official party status.
Under the All-Party Primary:
- All candidates appear together on one ballot, open to every voter.
- Endorsements from any party or designation can appear next to a candidate’s name (if accepted). A candidate can run as a registered Democrat endorsed by the Working Families Party (or vice-versa).
- A political designation can qualify as a full party if its candidate for any statewide office receives at least 3% of the vote in the primary, rather than the general election.
This reform increases visibility, fairness, and opportunity for new and smaller parties—ensuring voters can see and support the full range of ideas on the ballot.
Q: Is there research to support this reform?
A: Yes. Visit coalitionforhealthydemocracy.org/research for summaries and links to full reports and analysis on All-Party Primaries.
Q: How can people get involved?
A: Sign up to volunteer! Whether you gather signatures, host a community event, or simply talk with friends and neighbors, your participation helps bring fair, open, and competitive elections to Massachusetts.
