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 shift 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. In a way, can you blame them? They love the current status quo precisely because it gives them a disproportionately large influence over the state Democratic Party — a party that itself 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 Dems have dominated since 1959. Today, winning election to an office in Massachusetts increasingly means winning a Dem primary, since the hapless MassGOP regularly doesn’t field candidates in general elections. So, yes, many progressives, such as Robert Kuttner, support the current status quo, even though it has contributed to 51 percent of all elections in Massachusetts going uncontested since 2014.
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 main pluses of scrapping the current party-primary system (Globe). … I’ve previously harped on our flawed primary system here and here …

