The Globe’s Chris Van Buskirk has a good piece on the push to eliminate party primaries in Massachusetts – and how it’s dividing state Democrats. … Did you know that former Gov. Deval Patrick is among those supporting the move to non-partisan primaries in the state? I’m impressed. … But here’s a non-surprise: many progressives (though not all) are against the switch. And can you blame them? They love the current status quo that’s given them a disproportionately large influence over a state Democratic Party that represents only 25 percent of enrolled voters and yet controls all six statewide elected offices and 11 Congressional seats while maintaining a super-majority in a Massachusetts Legislature that’s been dominated by Dems since 1959. Today, winning an election to office in Massachusetts increasingly means winning a Dem primary race, since the hapless MassGOP, pounded into the dirt by decades of incompetence and gerrymandering, regularly doesn’t field candidates in general elections. So, yeah, many progressives, such as Robert Kuttner, a true progressive’s progressive, support the current party-primary system despite the fact that 51 percent of all elections in Massachusetts have gone uncontested since 2014.* The current system has given them power. …
Do I think non-partisan primaries are the cure-all to the state’s current political and governmental woes? Nope. But it sure would shake things up in a state that desperately needs shaking up. I’ll let Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor and former gubernatorial candidate, explain the pluses of scrapping the current party system (Globe). … Btw: I’ve previously harped on our flawed primary system here and here …
Btw II: Jon Ellis at MassterList blasts away at the MassGOP’s attempt to eliminate competition in its own primary for governor. … * Note: The 51 percent figure via Danielle Allen’s Globe piece.

