Question 3 asks voters to replace party primaries with a system that advances the top two finishers — even ones of the same party — to the general election. Although I’m a Democratic Party activist, I personally believe this proposal hurts all voters, including those with no party affiliation.

This is not about whether unaffiliated voters can participate in primaries. They already can in Massachusetts. Question 3 goes beyond “open” vs. “closed” primaries by preventing parties from formally nominating candidates at all.

Proponents point out that candidates would be able to list their party affiliation and any party endorsements on primary and general election ballots. The candidates’ affiliation, though, simply means that they registered with a party — they would be self-identifying rather than demonstrating support from a party. Moreover, while Republican and Democratic state conventions endorse statewide candidates before primaries, no endorsement process exists for congressional or legislative candidates.

Since Massachusetts leans Democratic, Question 3 could result in general elections pitting two Democrats against each other, while Republicans and other parties would be kept off the ballot entirely. In some cases, Democrats could be excluded if too many run and split the vote in the first round. Either scenario creates confusion. Both major state parties oppose Question 3, as does the Amherst Democratic Town Committee (I’m the outreach advisor for the ADTC).

“Top-two” supporters suggest the system encourages moderation, since members of a party excluded from the general election can cross over and vote for another party. For example, in a Democrat-vs-Democrat election, “orphaned” Republicans can theoretically vote for the more centrist Democrat. However, California’s experience with a top-two system shows high rates of “orphaned” partisans abstaining in general election competitions that feature only candidates of the other party, according to Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America, a think tank.

Question 3 is unlikely to encourage bipartisanship and instead risks unintended consequences. At their best, political parties bring together people with different demands and fuse ideas into identifiable platforms, creating clear choices for voters. Top-two primaries would only obscure those choices. Please vote “no” on Question 3.

Brian Boyd

Amherst