Massachusetts has earned its reputation as one of the country’s most liberal states. It got rid of capital punishment in 1984, legalized same-sex marriage in 2003, and enacted a health reform law in 2006 that served as a model for President Obama’s reforms. But electing women to executive positions in the Commonwealth has always been difficult. Massachusetts has never elected a female governor.

Last Tuesday, Massachusetts voters made great strides toward shattering proverbial glass ceilings. We only wish that more Massachusetts voters had taken part in these historic primaries: Turnout is estimated at a meager 17 percent. This was a banner day for diversity, but voter turnout must improve.

As the Portland Press Herald noted Saturday, Massachusetts primary voters—particularly Democrats—put female candidates in a position to capture four of the Commonwealth’s six constitutional offices, including the governorship. The Democratic primary also saw strides in LGBT representation: the Democratic nominees Maura Healey and Steve Kerrigan would be the nation’s first openly gay attorney general and lieutenant governor, respectively. These demographic trends are heartening, and signal that Massachusetts political life may be moving away from the “old boys network” that has too often characterized it.

Yet low voter turnout suggests a serious problem with civic engagement. We aren’t convinced that the partisan primary system itself is to blame: States that have instituted non-partisan, “jungle,” primaries have seen no significant increase in turnout. California switched to such a system in 2012 and witnessed a 90-year low for primary turnout. Still, with solidly Democratic precincts quiet last week during a competitive primary, Massachusetts politicians need to do far more to attract the attention of their constituents, and voters themselves must engage more with the political process.

One possible source of voter disengagement is the lackluster campaign run by Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee for governor who bested Treasurer Steve Grossman and Dr. Don Berwick in the primary. As the Boston Globe noted in their endorsement of Mr. Grossman, Coakley’s campaign has rested on the laurels of her long tenure as Attorney General, and evinced little in the way of detailed policies.

Coakley’s opponent, Republican nominee and former healthcare executive Charlie Baker, has also failed to run a transformative campaign. The Globe again correctly diagnosed Mr. Baker’s shortcomings: While he presents a clear plan for reforming a state government mired in recent scandals, he has few other overarching themes.

In short, voters have every reason to believe that neither party’s major candidate is concerned enough with enacting bold, detailed policies. Low turnout across the state is a sign that too many of citizens still feel alienated from Massachusetts public life, or are simply too uninterested to become involved in even the most basic manner. Ms. Coakley’s and Mr. Baker’s uninspiring efforts have not helped matters.

Massachusetts primary voters should be proud of their tickets’ diversity, but not quite as proud of the campaigns their gubernatorial candidates have run to this point. In the general election, we hope that both campaigns do a far better job refining their platforms and reaching out to a voting public that deserves more from its politicians.