The Boston Globe has four op-eds concerning Question Three, the top-two primary. Two are in favor and two are opposed. They are behind a paywall.
The pieces in favor are: (1) Danielle Allen wrote, “All-party primaries will make Massachusetts races more competitive”; (2) Bob Massie wrote, “This is a democratic reform progressives should like.”
The pieces in opposition are: (1) Jim Sturgis, “As bad as political parties can be, we still need them.”; (2) Richard Winger wrote, “Q-3 will be devastating for small parties.”
The four are grouped together under the heading, “Does the all-party primary make sense?” The Globe has endorsed Question Three and is supporting an attempt to change the nomenclature. “Top-two primary” is a neutral term coined in 2008 by the Washington state press. The Washington state press couldn’t call it an “open primary” because Washington already had an open primary. Proponents of top-two primaries have been trying for years to find another term. For years they called it a “non-partisan primary”, which makes little sense because party labels appear on the ballot. “All-party primary” is now their preferred label.