| Abdallah Fayyad | The Boston Globe |
For a more transformational approach, Massachusetts could try its hand at the sort of jungle primary used in Alaska. In Alaska, instead of advancing just the top two vote-getters in a nonpartisan primary to a runoff, the state puts the top four candidates in the general election. The general election also has ranked choice voting, where voters rank the candidates in order of preference.
More choice
The ranked choice voting process is ideal in a nonpartisan primary system because it ensures that we don’t end up in situations where potentially divisive candidates eke out a general election win with just over 25 percent of the vote. It might be difficult to establish the ranked-choice voting system in Massachusetts, given that a ballot measure trying to do so failed in 2020. But just because voters rejected it in the past doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying again in the future. And a jungle primary where more than the top two candidates make it to the general election ultimately gives voters more choice; it’s highly unlikely that all four candidates would be from a single party.
What’s clear is that something is broken in Massachusetts. Elections are simply too uncompetitive. And ultimately, any of these ideas would be better than the system in place now.