Key Takeaways
- • Harvard Crimson opinion piece by Associate Editorial Editor Sylvia A. Langer '28 urges Massachusetts voters to reject Ballot Question 3, which would adopt a top-two "jungle primary" system.
- • The column states that senior officials and employees of private equity firms, including Berkshire Partners, Bain Capital, and Cove Hill Partners, have collectively contributed around $3.39 million to a campaign supporting a "yes" vote on the measure.
- • The author cites California's experience with a top-two system adopted in 2010, arguing it can lock out majority preferences and favor well-funded candidates.
- • The author cites outside spending of $108 million on House candidates in California's 2018 midterms, nearly double 2016 levels, as evidence that such systems amplify money in elections.
- • The column recommends expanding voter registration and education, stronger campaign finance limits, publicly funded campaigns, and ranked-choice voting instead.
Summary
An opinion column published in The Harvard Crimson by Sylvia A. Langer '28, an Associate Editorial Editor, argues against Ballot Question 3 in Massachusetts, which would introduce a top-two jungle primary. The author writes that senior officials and employees at private equity firms Berkshire Partners, Bain Capital, and Cove Hill Partners have collectively contributed around $3.39 million to a campaign supporting a "yes" vote, and frames this funding as a reason for skepticism about the measure's motives.
The column uses a hypothetical electorate to illustrate how a top-two system can produce outcomes that diverge from majority preferences when a large bloc of voters splits among several candidates from the same party. It points to California, which adopted a top-two system in 2010, and says the 2026 California gubernatorial election nearly produced such an outcome. The author also argues that the system does not address candidate viability, which depends heavily on campaign finance. As evidence, the column cites outside spending of $108 million on U.S. House candidates in California's 2018 midterms, nearly double the 2016 figure.
The author acknowledges that Massachusetts needs reform, noting that about 60 percent of state House and Senate seats will be uncontested in November and that the state has been described as having the least transparent government in the country. However, the column contends that Ballot Question 3's costs outweigh its benefits. It proposes expanding voter registration and education, strengthening campaign finance restrictions, pursuing publicly funded campaigns, and adopting ranked-choice voting as alternatives. The column concludes by urging voters to vote "no" on Proposition 3, linking the measure to broader public frustration with private equity ownership of hospitals and single-family homes in the state. This is an opinion piece, and the claims about the campaign and its funding are the author's characterizations.
The column uses a hypothetical electorate to illustrate how a top-two system can produce outcomes that diverge from majority preferences when a large bloc of voters splits among several candidates from the same party. It points to California, which adopted a top-two system in 2010, and says the 2026 California gubernatorial election nearly produced such an outcome. The author also argues that the system does not address candidate viability, which depends heavily on campaign finance. As evidence, the column cites outside spending of $108 million on U.S. House candidates in California's 2018 midterms, nearly double the 2016 figure.
The author acknowledges that Massachusetts needs reform, noting that about 60 percent of state House and Senate seats will be uncontested in November and that the state has been described as having the least transparent government in the country. However, the column contends that Ballot Question 3's costs outweigh its benefits. It proposes expanding voter registration and education, strengthening campaign finance restrictions, pursuing publicly funded campaigns, and adopting ranked-choice voting as alternatives. The column concludes by urging voters to vote "no" on Proposition 3, linking the measure to broader public frustration with private equity ownership of hospitals and single-family homes in the state. This is an opinion piece, and the claims about the campaign and its funding are the author's characterizations.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.