Want to politically stir things up in Massachusetts? Create really competitive races for a change? Throw out ossified members of a party that’s dominated Beacon Hill since Dwight Eisenhower was president in 1959? Break up political parties’ monopoly on who gets on state election ballots? Then vote ‘yes’ on Question 3, the ballot measure that would replace the current party primary system in Massachusetts with a California-like ‘all-party primary’ system. … Another reason to vote ‘yes’ on Question 3? The entire political establishment in Massachusetts opposes the measure, as Commonwealth Beacon reports. Of course they’re against eliminating party primaries. They’d lose their current monopoly over the process if it happened here. … 

Btw: I harped on this topic earlier this year. I’ll repeat: Open non-party primaries are not the cure-all, that’s for sure. But they’re a hell of a lot better than the current flawed system in which three out of five House and Senate races have only one candidate on the ballot.

Btw II: David D’Alessandro agrees the system needs a major shakeup (“Massachusetts has an aging problem. It’s called Beacon Hill” – Globe) but favors term limits to throw the 70-something rascals out. I like term limits too. But it’s an idea that’s been debated for years – and gone nowhere. Question 3 is right here, right now. … 

Btw III: GBH’s Saraya Wintersmith recently talked with Danielle Allen, chair of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, about why she supports Question 3.