Sharing how I believe elections need to improve unnerves me, and I worry my ideas, especially since unfinished, will be open to critique. But, since I need grassroots support to continue working on legislation, I need to share some of these ideas that, to me, seem quite obvious improvements.

In sharing, I will attempt to explain why this proposal is necessary, legal, and would save money, the latter since so many people don’t have enough.

In sum, this idea is to provide a state-based campaign platform that provides information on state candidates and assists with signature gathering. Although the final details still need to set, details might include allowing the distribution of campaign materials in a prescribed area in libraries; hosting signature gathering events, debates, and campaign information in government buildings; and mailing voters the names of all candidates and where to get more information and sign nomination papers. This is a short list, more could be included, but this is the gist.

Government sometimes argues that use of state-funded buildings for political campaign and signature gathering materials undermines political neutrality: this is very wrong. A free and fair election process, including candidate campaigns, is necessary for democracy. Providing candidates a free and fair platform should be the government’s job.

As far as neutrality, checks, balances, and guardrails can exist. The media, by law, is simply required to give media coverage for each candidate equal to that of other candidates. In the same way, government can provide equal space for candidate campaign materials, without restricting free speech. If government hosts debates, guardrails can insure that the design is fair and informational. For government neutrality, the questions in a debate do not have to be decided by government: candidates and voters can decide instead. Government forms can capture candidate major points in a neutral fashion.

Since technology now makes it easy for false videos and rumors to spread online, providing a state platform is even more important as well as including in-person debates to insure that voters see and hear candidates ‘speak for themselves’ rather than be only falsely spoken for or described online. A state platform could provide a level of trust and security that helps undermine deceptive spending by any metaphorically like Mr. Burns (the Simpson’s billionaire), Scar (the Lion King’s murderous brother), or Gargamel (set on Smurf extinction).

Given the modern dilemma of verifying candidate statements, basic verification requirements could be defined, provided these were fair and objective, similar to how LinkedIn and other platforms provide identity verification. These could be as simple as verification of the candidate’s stated education and work experience.

Returning to why we need to give candidates a free platform, the cost of political campaigns remains high, leaving even incumbents dependent upon wealthy patrons–the average political campaign in 2024 was more than 70K for state senators and 30K for state representatives–this is insulting to the concept that anyone can run for office or that we have ‘democracy’ instead of elite rule.(1)

Governor Maura Healey spent 8 million on her 2022 governor campaign alone. In 2022, 3 other candidates for office split $530,270 of matching funds.(2) Matching funds are a waste of state resources. Matching funds and other donations would be better spent on charity and a system that helps everyone, not just a few, by providing a reliable, inclusive, and cheaper campaign and signature gathering platform to support fair election campaigns and diminish wealthy influence.

Candidates for office typically face substantial logistic and financial barriers in outreach to voters. Many voters no longer buy a local newspaper, check local news, or even connect in person locally or know where to find candidate information–media and information is fragmented. And a candidate may need to not only gather 10K (governor) or 300 (state senator) signatures, but must find an outside treasurer to manage spending of personal and donated funds.

State government needs to step up and provide a fair and free campaign platform that protects democracy and free speech.

We need a platform for all. We need incumbent challenges. We need to hear from candidates who have a heroic reason to run, but don’t necessarily have money, free time, or helpful connections, but are simply running with a cause. Incumbent challengers do not even need to win to add value, for by sharing their reasons for running they add ideas that can then be pursued. We need incumbent challengers so we all can learn about a toxic ‘XYZ’, failing health care system, tech misuse, or any other issue not being addressed or any possible solution.

We need candidates that are brave enough to take up marginalized issues to protect our community when incumbents fail to do so.

We need challengers to point out potential incumbent corruption. Institutions, and even media, can fear the fallout of revenge of politicians in office, but challengers may uniquely may benefit by highlighting ‘dodgy’ behavior.

Currently, the Massachusetts Democratic Party is facing challenges within the party, as many within the base feel leadership has aligned with financial and expedient political interests. Grassroots forces are also attempting to challenge the structure of the state legislature with a petition initiative, believing the same of the state legislature.(3, 4, 5) Whether the Democrats or any other party or person is in power or leadership, the fact is that power attracts corrupting influences. We need to support election campaigns that promote voter choice and accountability, and make challenges to incumbents visible.

Even if the Democratic majority populace and Democratic party in Massachusetts fears a free campaign platform would lead to Republican or fringe takeover or vs. vs., fears need to be set aside in favor of reason. Free speech is a hallmark of our constitution, and political discourse is necessary to resolve our issues and differences.

According to University of Chicago professor Robert Pape, a lack of trust in the government system and its leaders to fairly address social upheaval results in polarization and violence. Dr. Pape has reported from surveys that political violence is dangerously on the rise: e.g. in May of 2026 39% of Democrats supported force to remove President Trump and 24% of Republicans felt force was justified by Trump to suppress Democratic protests.(6)

Free campaigns may be the best way to support truth as represented by real lives in our local communities. As far as fringe takeover, truth tends to be powerful. And the so-called ‘fringe’ may be right, representing marginalized voices which deserve public support.

While I can’t be certain of costs, I suggest costs would be reduced by cutting out the expensive ‘middle man’ or advertising agencies and consultants. For example, government can use existing resources such as libraries and government buildings to provide a space for information to be shared and signatures gathered. Mailings can limited and focus on informational text. If a website is provided for all candidates, costs would be reduced by creating one rather than multiple sites for all candidates.

Canada estimates that it cost each voter approximately $20.97 in Canadian dollars to cover all 2021 election costs, including reimbursement of candidate campaigns–which converts to $15.38 U.S. dollars using today’s rate.(7) According to the report, less than a quarter of those expenses were for reimbursement of candidate expenses, and Canada provides only fifty percent reimbursement limited only to candidates reaching certain vote thresholds.

Less than $3 Canadian dollars ($2.20 U.S. dollars, currently) was spent on candidate reimbursement in Canada. Although Canada uses a different model that supports more expensive privatized campaigns than as here proposed, $2.20 per voter is a useful comparison. Massachusetts has approximately 5 million voters.

Moving on to another topic than campaign finance, another avenue to save is cutting costs of the existing system. In September of 2024, only 16.7% of voters cast primary votes, meaning circa 1 in 6 voters decided who would be on the November ballot as Democrats or Republicans–in some cases ending the need for a November vote.

Primaries serve the private interests of political parties, since only certain Democrat and Republican candidates are included. And if hardly anyone attends, then why subsidize primaries that serve just two private entities with a monopoly on voter choice? Primaries could be eliminated if ranked choice were adopted for single seat and proportional representation for multiple seat elections.(8) Because local municipalities also cover the costs of elections, this would save money for municipalities as well as the state.

Aside from costs, mail-in ballots need to be set aside simply because the United States Postal Service is being driven into the ground and politicized. Whether there are cost savings or cost increases is irrelevant if ballots are not delivered on time or at all. In 2024, officials reported properly addressed ballots were returned as undeliverable, which would inadvertently place voters on the inactive voter list, and that ballots postmarked on time were delivered days after deadline cutoffs.(9) Notably, new USPS rules mean that the delivery postmark will no longer be the date of mailing, but the date when the mail is processed by USPS facilities–this rule could mean tax documents, ballots, and other legal documents could be considered late, past deadline, even when timely mailed.(10)

Technology and executive influence makes precise targeting possible, as Trump seems inclined to do by establishing his own voter list, reducing USPS sorting facilities, and directing the USPS not to deliver ballots of any other voters.

[Update 6/9/2026: The decentralized nature of the USPS means control by the executive branch remains difficult, so mail-in ballots may work if mailed early. Check online, including local boards and the USPS, to see how post service in your area. Also, make sure to check whether Trump’s executive orders are upheld by the Supreme Court, which will decide whether Trump can prosecute election officials for failure to comply with his orders. Currently, his orders are winding through the courts.]

Despite the ridicule attached to voters suggesting technology could increase election manipulation, reputable organizations such as Verified Voting (VerifiedVoting dot org) have provided a listing of areas where elections must be improved and verified, including voting equipment, post-election audits, and election security.

Historically vote manipulation, such as in the south, has been an issue, including voter machine manipulation due to the ability of election officials to manipulate voter results through insider access. DefCon Voting Village has in the past provided modern voting machines for investigation by hackers and found successful, rapid hacking possible. Even without intentional hacking, 93% of voters fail to notice printing errors when using electronic ballot marking devices.

In addition, busy polls are an important location to gather petition signatures for ballot questions.(11) With common areas for political work and signature gathering limited, mail-in voting further reduces public accessibility to voter signature drives for public ballot questions and democracy.

My sense is that mail-in ballots should be limited to those with special circumstances, not only because of the above, but because time, costs, and intimidation or bribery may be a factor. When visiting voter registrar offices before elections with petition initiatives, offices seem to be overwhelmed preparing mail-in ballots. Mail-in ballots also allow coercion, such that a parent or domestic partner can intimidate or ‘decide’ another’s vote—or bribery increase because choices are not decided privately at the ballot box. Criticism of mail-in ballots has been lambasted, but it seems mail-in ballots for all simply serves convenience and undermines quality control.

Voter accessibility is important, but there are other ways to increase voter accessibility such as:

work leave incentives;
integration with emergency and end-of-life care centers to provide voting options;
better polling signage;
reducing queues;
extension of early voting; and
an election day holiday.

Of these, an election day holiday could be an educational and celebratory opportunity–better than Independence Day. When life is in utter chaos, a mail-in ballot can be lost and forgotten, but an election holiday could attract attention and camaraderie. Many may also prefer in person voting, while ‘convenience’ voting may, in contrast, simply be ignored.(10.5)

Other options for changing elections may be on the ballot in 2026.

The secretary of state has put forward an excellent petition initiative that will hopefully lead to a ballot question to allow same day voting registration. This is needed since the current system seems designed to kick existing voters off the voting list while making it extremely difficult to return as described in an article by Jonathan Hecht of CROL.(12)

The Massachusetts ‘All-Party Primaries‘ petition initiative for a ballot question in 2026 proposes to open primaries to all candidates, but harms popular representation by allowing the top two candidates to be chosen for advancement without ranking votes. Open primaries allow spoilers because votes are not ranked to allow second or third choices to be considered when the first choice doesn’t count (unlike ranked choice). If primaries exist, ranked choice needs to exist.

Harry Gruman found, for example, that ‘All-Party’ or open primaries split the vote in a California Republican district, so multiple Republicans running for office divided the 60% Republican popular vote and led two Democrats to advance. Democrats, at least: imagine if the top two advancing were Stalin and Wile E. Coyote.

Vote splitting or ‘spoiler’ fears are real concerns. Vote splitting among opposing parties allowed the Nazis to become the largest party with just a plurality (37% in July 1932, 33% in November 1932) and led to Hitler as chancellor in 1933.

Because of fears, many voters set aside favored candidates for ‘safer’ incumbents and major political parties, benefiting the status quo at the cost of democracy. Cambridge, MA, and Easthampton, MA, currently rank votes to prevent spoilers. Other towns are following suit (such as Acton, Concord, Lexington).

Regardless of whether ranked choice or any other modification is ever adopted by the entire state of Massachusetts, we need a free, public campaign platform for all candidates. To do so is not only fair and principled, but a financial bargain with significant returns for democracy, sustainability, and even peace.

References

(1) How much did the average House and Senate candidates spend in 2024? Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance. @OCPFReports https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QxszPUSXQIE

(2) State Election Campaign Fund—Office of Campaign and Political Finance: For the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. March 31, 2023. Massachusetts Office of the State Auditor.https://www.mass.gov/doc/audit-report-state-election-campaign-fund-office-of-campaign-political-finance/download

(3) Why a Fair Legislature? October 1, 2023. Last Tree Laws. https://lasttreelaws.com/why-a-fair-legislature/

(4) Aaron Singer. Why the Democratic supermajority on Beacon Hill won’t pass Democratic bills. Commonwealth Beacon. October 11, 2025. https://commonwealthbeacon.org/opinion/why-the-democratic-supermajority-on-beacon-hill-wont-pass-democratic-bills/

(5) The 85%: Who Really Represents You? 2025 ShadowsDoc LLC. https://www.shadowsdoc.com/85percent

(6) A look at research on Americans’ changing attitudes toward political violence. NPR Interview of Dr. Robert Pape by Michel Martin. September 12, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/09/12/nx-s1-5538063/a-look-at-research-on-americans-changing-attitudes-toward-political-violence

(7) Estimated Cost of the 45th General Election. Elections Canada. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?dir=rep%2Foff%2Fcou&document=index45&lang=e&section=res

(8) Ranked Choice Voting. FairVote. https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/

(9) John Hanna & Christina Cassidy. Widespread problems with U.S. mail system could disrupt voting, election officials warn (Sep 11, 2024) PBS News. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/widespread-problems-with-u-s-mail-system-could-disrupt-voting-election-officials-warn

(10) New U.S. Postal Service Rules Could Affect Whether Your Tax Filing Is Considered On Time (April 8, 2026) Taxpayer Advocate Service. https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/nta-blog/new-u-s-postal-service-rules-could-affect-whether-your-tax-filing-is-considered-on-time/2026/04/

(10.5) M. Belén Abdala (2024) In-person or convenience voting? The role of the direct costs in explaining preferences for voting modalities. Electoral Studies, Volume 91, 102851, ISSN 0261-3794, doi.org/10.1016/.electstud.2024.102851.

(11) Election Advisory #24-02: Electioneering and Signature Gathering within 150 Feet of Voting Locations (February 23, 2024) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth. Elections Division. https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/download/advisories/Election_Advisory-24-02.pdf

(11) Jonathan Hecht. Legislative Dysfunction and the Failure of Inactive Voter List Reform. Coalition to Reform Our Legislature. https://www.malegreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Inactive-voter-list-reform-13Nov2023.docx.pdf

Additional Reading

Daniel P. Tokaji (2009) The Future of Election Reform: From Rules to Institutions. pp. 125-154. YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/381677dd-78d8-4341-9608-cdb4197769f7/content

Funding Election Administration. National Conference of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/funding-election-administration

Voter Choice Massachusetts (VoterChoiceMA dot org)