Massachusetts Top-Two Primary Ballot Question Would Disadvantage Principled Conservatives
Source: Brianna Lyman. "MA Ballot Question Could 'Block Out Principled Conservatives'." September 28, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The article argues that a Massachusetts ballot measure replacing party primaries with a single open primary (where the top two vote-getters advance) would hurt conservative Republican candidates by letting independents and Democrats help decide who represents the GOP. The author uses Alaska's similar experience—where a moderate Republican senator won partly due to crossover votes—as a cautionary example, and quotes conservative experts who claim such reforms are designed by establishment Republicans, Democrats, and liberal donors to sideline true conservatives.
Conclusion
Massachusetts' ballot question eliminating party primaries in favor of a single top-two primary would block principled conservatives from reaching the general election and benefit establishment/RINO Republicans and Democrats instead.
Premises
- Under a top-two primary system, independent and Democratic voters (not just Republican primary voters) would influence which candidates advance, diluting the ability of conservative-aligned Republicans to nominate their preferred candidates.
- Survey and expert testimony data show independent voters hold different political views than Republican primary voters, meaning candidates must moderate their messaging to appeal to this broader electorate.
- In Alaska's similar open-primary/ranked-choice system, establishment Republican Lisa Murkowski defeated more conservative challenger Kelly Tshibaka only because of crossover support from voters who would not have chosen her in a traditional closed Republican primary.
- Similar fights in North Carolina over allowing unaffiliated voters into Republican primaries reflect a pattern where establishment Republicans benefit at the expense of more conservative candidates.
- Election law experts and advocates (Dr. John Eastman, Jason Snead) argue these primary reforms are deliberately designed by 'RINO' Republicans, Democrats, and liberal donors to block conservative nominees and shift American politics leftward.
- Liberal donors are recruiting conservative spokespeople to create a false impression that these reforms (like ranked-choice voting) are bipartisan, when they are actually intended to disadvantage the right.
Assumptions
- Party primaries restricted to registered partisans produce more 'principled' or ideologically consistent nominees than open contests.
- Broadening the primary electorate to include independents and opposing-party voters necessarily produces more moderate, establishment-aligned outcomes rather than reflecting genuine voter preference.
- The Alaska outcome (Murkowski's win) is representative of what would happen in Massachusetts, despite acknowledged differences in system design (ranked-choice vs. top-two).
- Motives behind primary reform advocates (Democrats, 'RINO' Republicans, liberal donors) are uniformly cynical and strategic rather than genuinely aimed at electoral inclusivity or reducing polarization.
- Voter preferences expressed through more inclusive primaries are illegitimate or less authentic than those expressed in closed partisan primaries.