The path to hell is paved with good intentions. We think we can all agree that our political system is flawed, but Question 3’s proposal will make it worse. Question 3 would eliminate party primaries and replace them with an all-party primary, also known as an open primary system. It is a hedge fund manager’s playground funded by deep pockets, pushing a gigantic systemic mistake. We urge a “no” vote and, instead, renewed efforts for better structural reforms.

Do you think a general election with a choice of one MAGA Republican and one traditional Republican would be a good idea? If so, Question 3 is for you, because that could actually happen. We could easily end up with seven Democrats splitting the vote and two Republicans at the top of the ticket.

What are your thoughts about unregulated dark money in our elections? If you like big money in politics, vote for Question 3. Open primaries amplify the power of name recognition (also known as money), rather than candidates’ positions on issues. And, by turning an election into “two general elections,” campaign costs skyrocket. This minimizes the value of small donations from citizens and threatens to bankrupt the political programs of grassroots organizations and labor unions, who must now fund two massive statewide operations.

Do you think it’s a good idea to prevent Green Party, Independent Party, and Working Families Party candidates from running for office? Question 3 would likely do that. They won’t have a chance this way. The person with the most money to spend will likely win and will be even more beholden to big donors.

Proponents, championed prominently by Danielle Allen and her Coalition for Healthy Democracy, ask Massachusetts voters to adopt a reform that relies on a dangerous premise: the way to fix our fractured democracy is to dismantle the very foundations that provide stability.

This measure attacks the essential element of well-functioning, healthy democracies: the parties themselves. Political parties that recruit candidates and organize voters around common values, along with civic organizations that build relationship-based memberships, are the backbone of democracy. No healthy democracy exists without them.

There are very good reasons that we associate one-party or no-party systems with authoritarianism. A system based primarily upon charismatic, well-funded candidates offers no accountability. A better democracy requires active, organizational involvement.

There is no impartial evidence supporting the claim that this open primary proposal would improve governance, produce “moderates,” or increase voter participation. For example, according to the Center for Ballot Freedom, 38 states use some form of an open system. If they were an antidote to polarization, the proof would be in the numbers. Instead, roughly 70% of the congressional Freedom Caucus members come from open primary states. That is hardly an advertisement for moderation.

While Question 3’s proposal to allow candidates to have one or more party labels on the ballot next to their name is well-intentioned, it is not helpful. When ballots are counted, there is no way to know the breakdown of votes by party, so the motivation of the voters selecting the winning candidate is not understood. If you can’t count how many votes a party delivers to a candidate, you have no way to know its real heft.

There are much better electoral solutions than open primaries. Fusion voting, for example, also known as “ballot freedom,” enables more than one party to nominate the same candidate as their nominee on the ballot, giving minor parties a meaningful way to participate in elections and creating more viable party options on the ballot. With fusion, a voter can choose a candidate on whichever party line that best represents their views. When the votes are counted, it is clear which parties delivered votes to a particular candidate and which policies and views that candidate should respect. Candidates would be more accountable to the parties and voters. Fusion voting isn’t new. At one time, every state in the nation had fusion voting until powerful interests killed it. Today our neighbors in New York and Connecticut use it effectively.

Another healthy alternative is actual Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), not included in Question 3, but adopted in 62 U.S. jurisdictions. RCV permits voters to rank candidates in order of preference and eliminates spoiler candidates.

As active participants in political campaigns and regular voters who believe in the rights of people to choose their representatives, we ask you to join us in voting “no” on Question 3.

Wendy Berg and Jay Kilbourn are residents of Northampton who fervently believe in the power of the vote.