No on 3

@voterrightsma.bsky.social

Don’t let billionaires buy our elections.

linktr.ee/voterrightsMA

@smadin.netReposted by @voterrightsma.bsky.social

for Q3: • private equity and venture capital execs • Jake Auchincloss and Seth Moulton, the two worst MA representatives • Charlie Baker against Q3: • Progressive Mass • Ayanna Pressley • Ed Markey as I've said before, even if I knew nothing else but who's on which side, that'd be enough. No on 3!

@ojc.bsky.socialReposted by @voterrightsma.bsky.social

If Q3 passes then rich Republicans would be able to: - Fund more Democrats to run and split the vote - Bribe Republicans (beyond the top 2) to drop out With the goal of splitting the D vote and forcing two unpopular Republicans as the only two choices in the general election.

@voterrightsma.bsky.social

"A top-two system expands the power of wealthy interests in general elections...That’s exactly why those wealthy interests are pushing for it: in Massachusetts, more than 60% of the money raised to pass Question 3 has come from just five private equity executives." @workingfamilies.org

Massachusetts Working Families Party logo Headline: Massachusetts Working Families Party Announces Opposition to Question 3, Warns “Jungle Primary” Would Make Elections Less Competitive, Not More No on 3 logo
@dextrosity.bsky.socialReposted by @voterrightsma.bsky.social

Need my fellow Massholes to vote NO on Question 3 so that private equity can’t just easily buy themselves moderate candidates here in the Commonwealth.

@jonathancohn.bsky.socialReposted by @voterrightsma.bsky.social

It’s raining hard here in MA, and the private equity money has been raining down hard in support of Question 3 (jungle primaries).

Remember, folks: The most dangerous words in the English language are “We’re from private equity, and we’re here to help.”

Vote NO on 3. #mapoli

@jonathancohn.bsky.socialReposted by @voterrightsma.bsky.social

The Yes on 3 campaign (jungle primaries) keeps saying that Q3 will lead to more candidates running. They fail to understand the actual barriers potential candidates face and will make those barriers even greater.

I have been volunteering for candidates up and down the ballot for 14 years, and what I always tell people is that the two biggest barriers for any candidate considering running for office are TIME and MONEY. If you want to see more people run for office, you need to tackle the barriers of TIME and MONEY. Both are barriers that hit working-class candidates, grassroots candidates, women, and people of color especially hard. Question 3 (all-party primaries/jungle primaries), by contrast, would increase the TIME and MONEY involved in running for office. That doesn't increase competition: it artificially constrains it by limiting who will even consider running for office in the first place.
Older posts