Repeal of PR May Alter Nature of Cambridge Politics

Cambridge voters go to the polios next Tuesday with the chance to change the way they cast their ballots--and probably the very nature of the City's politics.

This City of 107,000 is the only one in the nation to vote under a system called Proportional Representation (PR). At one time or another, PR was used in 22 municipalities across the country. New York abandoned it in 1949 (though recently there has been agitation for its return), Cincinnati in 1957, and Hopkins, Minn., in 1961.

In Cambridge, PR was adopted along with the City Manager form of government in 1941, and since then has been unsuccessfully challenged at the polls four times.

PR is extraordinarily complicated--one of the main arguments of the anti-PR force's is that few voters understand the system. "They've been using it for 24 years and still don't know what it's about," says Lawrence Brennan, who is leading the fight against PR.

Its supporters claim, however, that PR's great asset is that it enables different minority groups to gain representation roughly equal to their strength. Thus, on the present Cambridge Council there is one Italian-American, one Negro, and one Jew.

Majority Rule

Opponents of PR insist that the system exerts a permanent divisive influence on the City. Instead of a coalition of interests, the majority ought to rule, they say. What they propose to replace PR with is the traditional non-partisan system of citywide primaries and general elections. In the primary the 18 candidates receiving the highest totals would be nominated for the general election; of these, nine would win in November.

Under PR there are no primaries. Briefly, the system works this way:

A voter lists the candidates in a preferential order (1.2.3...etc.)--this ranking is the crux of the whole system. A voter may list as many candidates as he wishes as long as there is a clear preferential order. The ballots are then distributed into piles according to those who have received the "number one vote" on each blank.

On the basis of the total vote, a quota needed for election is determined (it is one tenth of the total plus one). Some candidates can meet the quota from their "number one" votes. They are declared elected and any ballots they have in surplus of the quota are re-distributed to those who are listed second on the ballot (those who have received the "number two votes"). At the same time, those with the least number of "number one votes" are declared defeated and their ballots are given to those second on the list. This process of elimination and redistribution continues until nine candidates have received the necessary quota.

The technical operation of PR strongly influences the day-to-day workings of politics in the City. Because any successful candidate needs only about ten per cent of the total vote to be elected, his campaign is likely to be relatively restricted--even though voting is city-wide. In practice, City Councillors (and aspiring candidates) concentrate their attention on narrow geographical or interest groups--minority groups, or special professions or occupations.

This style of politics is highly personalized. The skillful councillor has a firm grasp on his "number one votes," and election-time does not see the swaying of large numbers of people from one candidate to another. At a recent political rally, one politician surveyed the crowd and commented: "There's not a person in this room who doesn't already know who his 'number one vote' is going to. You can't be active in Cambridge politics and stay uncommitted."

If the City's voters reject PR next week, Cambridge politics is in for a long and important transition. At first, most politicians seem to agree that the noticeable changes will be few. The same faces will be around, and most will be able to make, at least, a temporary accommodation to the new system.

Effects of Change

But after one or two elections, the effects of the change will make themselves felt. Initially, prospective candidates will find it easier to break into the Council. No longer will a Councillor be able to rely on a small block of faithful, reliable voters. To win he will need a majority. It is the implications of this simple truth that puzzle so many observers.

Some claim that the change would make bona fide issues a real part of future campaigns. Deprived of the facility of personally cultivating his own small nitch of support, the politician would have to go beyond handclasping and backslapping. Yet, it can be argued that Cambridge is not all that big, that politicians are probably capable of merely expanding their personality-based campaigns, and that, even if some rudimentary issues do develop, they will be more coverups for private factional squabbles.

Perhaps a more important question is which of the City's two major political powers will gain from the change. Currently, the City Council and school committee are almost equally divided between candidates endorsed by the Cambridge Civic Association and the so-called independents. (The independents hold a 5-4 majority on the Council; elected members of the school committee are split 3-3, chairs the committee and throws the majority to the CCA.)

The CCA is opposing the change with every resource at its command--a good indication that supporters of the civic association feel they have a great deal to lose if PR is tossed out. A look at recent voting figures tells why. The bulwark of the CCA's support lies in Wards 7 and 8--the Brattle Street area--and in city elections, CCA candidates poll only about 40 to 45 per cent of the total vote. With PR, that's good enough to elect respectable delegations to both the Council and the school committee. Under a plurality, only the strongest of CCA candidates might survive (Crane, who has city-wide support, for example), but those relying exclusively on CCA endorsement might be overwhelmed by the independent majorities.

Swear Word

In many parts of the City, the CCA's image is terrible--and "CCA" itself is probably a swear word. This is a reflection of antipathy between rich and poor, tension between the two large universities--and those associated with them--and the rest of the City. So bad, in fact, is the CCA's image that many politicians will not accept the association's endorsement because they believe it would be political suicide to do so. One present Councillor, Bernard Goldberg, first ran with CCA endorsement and lost; in the next election, he declined endorsement and won. If campaigns became truly city-wide, as they would under plurality, many observers believe the CCA would have trouble finding candidates able to cultivate a broad base of support.

Another worry for the CCA is the primary. CCA partisans may be less likely to turn out for these seemingly insignificant preliminary local elections than supporters of the independents. If that turned out to be true, some of the CCA candidates might have a hard time making it on the ballot in November.

Lack of Unity

Yet, as bad off as the CCA seems to be, the independents on the Council are not without problems. Most of them don't relish the prospect of plurality. Their comfortable mathematical majorities, which look so convincing on paper, fail to reflect their chief problem: lack of unity. Each independent's quest for votes is an individual matter; he is competing against other independents more than he is working with them. PR, favoring minority votes as it does, encourages this division. But the independents are not only split by the system, but also by temperament, background, and political philosophy.

The nub of the situation is this: the CCA possesses the financial and political organization (and unity) necessary for city-wide campaigns, but lacks a broad base of popular support. The independents apparently possess the broad base of support, but lack the unified organization. If the independents can unify rapidly, the CCA will get clobbered. If they can't, a whole range of unpredictable possibilities appear.

One independent, Councillor Walter J. Sullivan, has the potential power to create some semblance of order out of the disorganized ranks of the independents. Sullivan is from an old political family, has good political instincts, and inherits a hard core of workers loyal to his cause. His background is Irish Catholic, and he eats, sleeps, drinks, and prays politics. He avoids antagonizing anyone and gets along even with his political enemies. Walk out in the street someday with Sullivan; he knows everyone by his first name.

Unlike many of the other independents, Sullivan's search for votes has always been a city-wide effort. Irish Catholics are the largest voting bloc in Cambridge, and, with Sullivan's ability, some sort of powerful voting slate might be developed.

CCA May Benefit

That's one possibility. But the fact is, that no one will really confidently predict what will happen if PR is abandoned. Many independent elements might tend to go their own way out of pure self-interest or distrust for Sullivan.

Some other observers even suggest that the CCA would benefit from the change CCA candidates would no longer have to compete against each other for "number one votes" in the Brattle Street wards. Given added time to campaign in other parts of the City, the CCA's more unified front and greater financial backing could make for substantial gains.

If PR is abandoned party politics