How to Let the People Decide
Massachusetts has the least competitive legislature in the country. It is the source, I believe, for many of our problems.
From not enough housing being built to the MBTA being underfunded for decades, we have a general lack of urgency that can be traced to a lack of competition. When voters do not need to be consulted every two years, it’s easy for our concerns to go unaddressed and for elected officials to have the job, but not do the job.
I worked on this issue on the Ranked Choice Voting campaign, which was one way we saw to give the voters more choice. But there are a lot of ways to accomplish this. Here are ten items that I’ll seek to accomplish if elected, guided by three principles:
Seats in the House and Senate should be contested. When someone runs unopposed, voters are not truly choosing the direction for the Commonwealth and candidates do not need to work hard to reach out to them.
Incumbents should not have too large of an advantage. We know that incumbency helps candidates win re-election. But there is a difference between helping and making a race impossible to compete in. We want to make sure the playing field is relatively level.
Voters should be informed of their choices. A contested race does not mean much if not enough voters know about who’s running or if there are impediments to getting involved
I want to be clear that some of these are much harder than others. I don’t expect them all to pass. But it’s important, at a time of dissatisfaction with the pace of progress in Massachusetts, to start a conversation with a full-spectrum of ideas so that we can move forward on what seems to be the most impactful and realistic.
Move the state primary to mid-June. Our current late-summer primary calendar forces much of the campaign to happen while voters are traveling, moving or preparing for school. A June primary would give voters more time to evaluate the nominees and make the general election meaningful.
Make the general election what matters. Currently, most races are decided in the primary. The real decision point should come in November, when voters are more likely to be paying attention and turnout is higher. We can accomplish this via two ways: we send the top four candidates in the primary to the general election, as in Alaska; or we have multi-member districts with proportional representation.
Allow fusion voting. Candidates can win the support of smaller parties and appear on their ballot line while remaining Democrats or Republicans. This helps get more groups involved in the electoral process without acting like spoilers and give voters a clearer view of their options.
Increase the salaries of legislators and remove stipends. We almost had a ballot question to eliminate stipends given to legislators for committee work but which, according to opponents of it, serve to stifle opposition to leadership. Similarly, I know of people who have chosen not to run for the State House because it would be a significant salary cut. We should eliminate both problems by raising the base salary and eliminating stipends, so that more are encouraged to run and their pay is not dependent on others.
Guarantee qualifying candidates access to voters. Candidates who demonstrate substantial district support through a high signature threshold should receive a page in an official district-wide voter guide, similar to the information Massachusetts distributes about ballot questions. Voters should be able to hear directly from every credible candidate, not only those who can afford a large mailing operation.
Create voluntary public financing. Candidates who collect a required number of small donations or signatures from district residents should qualify for public grants or matching funds. That would allow candidates to spend more time talking to voters and less time pursuing large donors. We have public financing for statewide candidates and we should expand that to the legislature.
Limit the permanent accumulation of campaign money. Massachusetts should examine reasonable limits on how long candidates may carry large campaign balances from one election to another. Campaign accounts should help candidates communicate in current elections, not become permanent financial barriers that frighten away future challengers.
Establish a Legislative Debate Commission. An independent commission should work with local groups and public-access television to organize standardized debates in every contested legislative race. Participation could be required for candidates who accept public financing, while every legally qualified candidate would be invited.
Encourage monthly open office hours. Legislators should be available to the public in their communities. I will be holding weekly office hours if elected at different locations in the district and we should set the expectation that every legislator has at least two hours per month in their district where residents can ask them questions. This may not be able to be legislated, but leadership could establish the norm that the first Monday in every month, for example, is office hour day.
Term limits in each chamber. I have never liked the concept term limits, but I have come to the conclusion that they are preferable to uncontested elections. Legislators could serve up to 12 years in the House and 12 years in the Senate, for 24 years in total in the legislature (though I’m happy to hear different numbers). Term limits remove institutional knowledge from the legislature, but they are the simplest way to force competitive elections. A Senator, for example, may win election, then face repeated challenges from House members in their district who are being term-limited. In each election, voters get to choose.
I’ve knocked on thousands of doors in my own campaign. I’ve talked to voters. Listened to their concerns. And I’ve given them a choice for who to vote for.
That should be what every candidate has to do every two years. If we can pass some of these policies, I believe that we would have a much more vibrant and effective democracy.