> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://ivn.us/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Poll: 51% of Massachusetts Voters Back Scrapping Party Primaries - URL: https://ivn.us/poll-51-of-massachusetts-voters-back-scrapping-party-primaries/ - Published: 2026-09-01T15:38:17.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-01T15:48:48.000Z - Description: A new poll shows 51% of Massachusetts voters support replacing the state's partisan primary system with a nonpartisan open primary where all candidates appear on one ballot, a change that will appear on the November ballot. - Author: Shawn Griffiths - Tags: Open Primaries, Independent Voters, #Top-Story **BOSTON, Mass.**—Massachusetts voters are heading to the polls Tuesday under a partisan primary system that a majority of voters want to replace, according to new polling data. A [UMass Amherst/WCVB poll](https://recorder.com/2026/08/24/massachusetts-voter-poll-ballot-questions/?ref=ivn.us) found 51% of registered voters would definitely or probably support ditching separate Democratic and Republican primaries for a nonpartisan open primary in which all voters and candidates, regardless of party, participate on a single ballot. The proposal is set to appear on the November ballot as Question 3\. Under the reform, the top two vote-getters would advance to the general election similar to the primary models in place in California and Washington. The poll found that 32% of respondents said they would probably or definitely vote against the change, while 17% were undecided. Along with the results, the timing of the poll is notable. UMass Amherst/WCVB surveyed 800 registered voters between August 5-12 and released the findings while early voting was underway for the September 1 primary. This means many of these respondents were asked how they felt about the current partisan system while actively participating in it. ## How Massachusetts Primaries Work Now Massachusetts uses a primary system that divides voters into two camps: There is the Democratic ballot and then there is the Republican ballot. For voters registered with a party, they can only vote in that party’s primary. Independent voters (registered unenrolled) must choose Republican or Democrat. Independents can participate without joining a party, but the only candidates they will see on their ballot are running under the party they choose. This system is commonly referred to as a semi-open partisan primary. Tuesday's most prominent contests highlight just how limited the choices can be under a partisan system. Democratic voters are choosing between incumbent US Sen. Ed Markey and US Rep. Seth Moulton, while Republican John Deaton has no primary opponent. Meanwhile, Republicans have a competitive gubernatorial primary between Michael Minogue and Brian Shortsleeve, while Democratic Gov. Maura Healey is running unopposed. Many races farther down the ballot offer even fewer choices. In several congressional districts, one party has no candidate at all, while numerous candidates face no primary opposition. So, when an independent voter picks a party ballot, they are sacrificing having a say entirely in some elections. Question 3 would fundamentally change that structure. ## One Ballot for Everyone Under the proposal, Democrats, Republicans, independents and other candidates would appear together on the same primary ballot. And, all voters—party members and independents—can choose any candidate they want in each race. Even voters registered with a party who want to vote for a candidate outside that party can do so—something they are barred from doing under the current system. Every voter would receive the same ballot regardless of party affiliation, and the two candidates that receive the most votes would advance to November. The change covers elections for governor and other statewide offices, the legislature, US Senate, US House, and certain county offices. It would not change presidential primaries, much like the systems in California and Washington. Question 3 is not simply about opening primary elections. Independent voters technically already have access in Massachusetts, even though it is not guaranteed if the parties suddenly decide they want to close the primaries. The measure gives every voter a couple of things they don’t have: the guaranteed right to an equal vote and the ability to consider all candidates, shifting from a party-nominated process to a voter-nominated process. ## An Unusual Opposition Coalition Much like the Top Two repeal effort in California, Question 3 has [produced strange political bedfellows](https://commonwealthbeacon.org/newsletter/odd-bedfellows-progressive-critics-join-democratic-republican-party-bosses-to-oppose-election-reform-ballot-question/?ref=ivn.us). The Massachusetts Democratic Party opposes it, along with labor organizations including the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, AFT Massachusetts and several SEIU locals, as well as progressive organizations. The Massachusetts Republican Party also opposes the measure, though it is not part of the formal No on 3 coalition. Opponents argue Massachusetts already gives independent voters access to primaries and say the top two system could weaken political parties, make it harder for minor parties to reach November, and increase the influence of large campaign donors. Supporters focus on the lack of choice and competition under the current system—particularly in a state where so many elections go uncontested. In 2026, [nearly 60% (59% to be specific) of legislative races](https://www.aol.com/articles/election-season-dawns-many-races-182807000.html?ref=ivn.us) drew only one candidate across both the primary and general election. Read that again. Only one candidate in 60% of elections. Voters are expected to have a choice between listed candidates in just 82 of the state’s 200 legislative districts. “Unenrolled (or independent) voters, who make up 65 percent of the electorate in the state and lag in turnout in the primaries, are also sidelined in the most consequential stage of the election cycle,” said Danielle Allen, convening chair of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy. > *“While it might seem simple to declare a party long enough to vote and then go back to being unenrolled, being forced to pick a party’s ballot — and subsequently being shut out of races that appear on the other party’s ballot — appears to be a disincentive to participation for unenrolled voters. Turnout rates are, indeed, lower for unenrolled voters in primary elections, and they are more likely to vote when they do not have to choose a partisan ballot.”* She added that when voters “are taken for granted, accountability slips and urgency disappears. When urgency disappears, problems linger. Housing remains unaffordable. Health care doesn’t meet needs. Costs keep rising.” The Coalition for Healthy Democracy is the sponsor of Question 3. The Yes on 3 coalition also includes State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, former Gov. Deval Patrick, former US Rep. Joe Kennedy III, former Republican Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, and the NAACP, among other individuals and groups. ### **The Polls Point to an Uncertain Future for Question 3** The UMass Amherst/WCVB poll shows that Question 3 has an advantage, but not a comfortable one. Only 20% of voters said they would definitely vote yes. Another 31% said they probably would. On the other side, 19% were firmly opposed and 13% probably opposed the measure. That leaves a large portion of the electorate either persuadable or undecided with two months of campaigning ahead.