On the night of Sept. 3, DSA members and allies celebrated what appeared to be an impossible victory in a key Massachusetts House of Representatives race: of union leader and DSA cadre member and endorsee Evan MacKay over Marjorie Decker, a mainstay of Massachusetts politics for 25 years who emerged as the face of obstructionism and the lack of transparency in the state legislature. Late that night, Decker all but conceded and MacKay supporters cautiously celebrated with their candidate.

In the next 24 hours, that sense of elation turned to trepidation and then heartbreak. Decker made up much of her deficit in the overnight counting, ending the counting of the city ballots down 40 votes. Decker then won the handful of overseas and auxiliary ballots — cast by voters our campaign was likely not able to reach — overwhelmingly to reverse that margin. 

While many involved in the MacKay campaign are, understandably, devastated by the loss, this campaign was, in many ways, a triumph. MacKay was vastly outspent. Their opponent recorded the endorsement of virtually every powerful Massachusetts Democrat (including ostensible progressives like Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Ayanna Pressley), and MacKay only came to be taken seriously in the media in the final few weeks of the campaign. To come so agonizingly close, much more went right than went wrong. 

So, what went right? MacKay was, and is, an excellent candidate. They stood up to Harvard University, an omnipresent force in the lives of Cambridge residents, and led the push to organize graduate students into the Harvard Graduate Student Union (HGSU-UAW 5118). As former president of HGSU, they were instrumental in the effort to democratize UAW and elect UAW President Shawn Fain. A member of the Cambridge LGBTQ+ Commission, they are an adept listener and skilled communicator who is deeply connected to their community. MacKay did not shy from their socialist credentials in the state house campaign, relied largely on the volunteer work of a group comprised overwhelmingly DSA members, but also drew attention to municipal issues such as a real estate transfer fee to fund affordable housing, and, in what became the defining municipal policies of the campaign, issues of democracy and transparency. 

The Massachusetts Legislature is a powerful institution with shockingly low levels of transparency. Important committee votes are nearly always kept secret votes, shielding representatives from accountability in a state where progressive values are often not reflected in legislation. Decker repeatedly voted against reforms that would have made these votes public. The Massachusetts Legislature is simultaneously — and not unrelatedly — one of the least productive in the country. Although Massachusetts is a state that pays legislators a living wage, many legislators also have lucrative side jobs that present apparent conflicts of interest. During the campaign it emerged that Decker held a six-figure position at a private law firm, despite the fact that she does not have a law degree. Massachusetts lawmakers even lavish cigars and fine dining on themselves, paid for by the campaign donations they receive in exchange for upholding the status quo.

In conversations with voters, what resonated most was Decker’s and the entire legislature’s contempt for democracy and accountability. They were shocked to hear about the legislature’s system of private committee votes and their representative’s role in keeping those votes under wraps. Once community members were engaged in conversation about our opaque and undemocratic structures, it was straightforward to pivot to the consequences: tax giveaways for the rich, failure to pass climate legislation, and skyrocketing rent prices unabated by rent control. 

What lessons are there then, for the socialist movement as a whole? While the particulars of the Massachusetts Legislature may be unique, the undemocratic and cloistered nature of its political system is not.

The first-past-the-post electoral method condemns the country to rule by two capitalist and grotesquely imperialistic parties. The wildly unpopular Electoral College has already led to two presidents this century who did not win even a plurality of the vote. The U.S. Supreme Court, an institution in which the majority of its members were handed lifetime appointments by Presidents who did not initially win the popular vote, is able to act as the nation’s highest legislative body through the institution of judicial review. The court has virtually legalized all but the most ham-fisted corruption and made bribery de facto legal, most notably in McDonnell v. United States. The country’s already anemic campaign finance laws were obliterated by the infamous Citizens United case. These decisions have had absurd results where election-buying happens in broad daylight and politicians face no repercussions for engaging in openly corrupt dealings. At this moment, Elon Musk is outright offering money to voters believed to favor Donald Trump to share their information and that of other swing-state voters. It is uncertain if even New York Mayor Eric Adams, allegedly bribed into genocide denial in a ludicrous scheme where he was paid in airline tickets by the Turkish government, will be convicted. 

Millions of Americans, including those most deeply affected by government failure and repression, do not have even a nominal say in our political processes. Immigrants, many incarcerated and formerly-incarcerated individuals, and residents of U.S. territories, are subjected to the violent whims of the American legal system and racialized capitalism without voting representation anywhere in the federal government. Adding to this farce, prisons are often located in conservative, rural areas, allowing conservatives disproportionate political power on behalf of the people they keep in cages — a scheme reminiscent of the infamous three-fifths clause, one of the Constitution’s foundational sins.

In short, the rot at the heart of the American constitutional system is spreading to all aspects of ostensibly democratic society, plain for all to see. The consequences of this rot are devastating, but they are also deeply unpopular and present an opportunity for organization and radicalization. MacKay’s campaign identified this in Massachusetts and used it to propel an underdog, first-time candidate into a virtual tie with one of the most powerful elected officials in the state. While the degree to which truly democratic reforms are possible from within will vary upon the situation, we must, in all circumstances, run candidates and organize campaigns like MacKay’s which will serve as tribunes for this cause. Socialists must campaign upon political freedom, not just material goals, in order to secure the realization of either. 

The opinions expressed herein are the authors’ own and do not represent their employers, the MacKay campaign, or Boston DSA.