Proportional Representation Unique in City

Wednesday morning, while the candidates are resting up after a strenuous election day, Election Commissioner Sondra Scheir and a staff of 90 election officials will begin to count the ballots in a manner that distinguishes Cambridge from every other city in the country.

Cambridge's current Plan E form of government began in 1942, when Mayor John L. Lyons was jailed on 42 counts of requesting and accepting bribes. Cambridge citizens voted for a charter change, placing most of the governing power in the hands of a city manager.

Scheir says a form of balloting known as "proportional representation" (PR) was enacted at that time to ensure representation for smaller political interest groups.

PR allows citizens to rank their choice of candidates, and then redistributes votes when candidates reach a "quota" of approximately 10 percent of the votes cast, Scheir says.

Although PR was once a common form of candidate selection, according to Richard Riche, the national director of the Center for Voting Rights, its popularity has dwindled until Cambridge is now the only U.S. city to elect officials in a proportional race. (Santa Cruz, Calif. is said to use a similar system, but officials there were unable to confirm that.)

New York City also uses PR in its community school board elections, Richie says, but because of the city's tremendous size the procedure is not thought to be practical on a larger scale.

Indeed, most objections to PR are made on the grounds that the lengthy tabulation of the vote tends to delay election results. Scheir says results from Cambridge elections will not be "official" until the end of the day on Friday, while School Committee results may not be available until the end of the next week.

Cantabrigians take pride in the process because of its peculiarity, Scheir says.

A Week-Long Count

On Wednesday, workers gathered in the Longfellow School gymnasium will handcount all the number one votes on the ballots. By the end of the day, officials will be able to announce the top four of five "unofficial" finishers, who are assured of council seats.

The candidates who "meet quota" in this first round are ranked first on the ballots of at least 10 percent of voters. The ballots in excess of quota are redistributed to the second choice candidates.

At this point Scheir says, workers eliminate those candidates who have received less than 50 votes each.

The process of redistribution and elimination continues until all nine Council seats have been filled.

Although Cambridge's process is lengthy, Scheir says residents wouldn't have it any other way. The city has investigated computerized methods of recording the vote, but for now the cost is prohibitive, Scheir says.

PR in International Elections

Though unique among American cities, Cambridge is certainly not alone worldwide in choosing PR. Professor of Government Kenneth A. Shepsle says many of the newly formed republics in Eastern Europe have used a form of PR in their national elections.

While this system may increase equity, Shepsle says it tends to result in massive numbers of political parties.

For example, in the recent Polish elections under PR, 29 candidates were elected from nearly 250 political parties, Shepsle says.

PR may run awry in Eastern Europe, Shepsle says, particularly if parties fail to build consensus because of the relatively small proportion of votes needed to be elected.

"Many cooks prospectively spoiling the broth is PR's form of gridlock," Shepsle warns.

While Eastern Europe may be experiencing problems with PR, some Canadians are looking to the system in hopes that it can insure more equitable representation in the country's Parliament, Richie says.

"In the recent election, the party which got the second highest percentage of the vote won only 2 seats out of 295," Richie said.

A Minority Voice

Cambridge's system of PR was instituted primarily to ensure that minorities would have a voice in city government.

"The feeling, as I understand it at that time, was that [PR] would provide an opportunity for the minority groups in the city," Scheir says.

Of course, she is quick to point out that the city's demographics have changed since the 1940s. At that time, "minorities" would have referred to citizens associated with the universities, not to racial or ethnic minorities.

Still, all concerned agree that PR has increased diversity on the council.

City Council candidate Kathy Born says she thinks Cambridge's system not only increases minority representation but discourages negative campaigning.

"It affords special representation to groups with special interests," Born says, "They form their own voting block in order to win--in Cambridge you have to win on a slate or get knocked out."

Candidate John R. Pitkin, who is otherwise critical of Cambridge's political systems, says he thinks PR is an "effective" way to ensure minority representation.

Pitkin says the system is especially fair because "almost every ballot ends up being counted for a candidate the voter favors."

Robert Richie, the national director of the Center for Voting and Democracy, says that PR is being considered again in cities across the nation as a way of providing minority representation.

"PR provides fair representation for racial and ethnic districts. What it basically does is allow voters to carve out constituencies and create a district out of a similar interest groups," Richie says.

Proportional representation and other systems (another one is known as cumulative voting) that differ from the traditional two-party, one-person, one-vote system were the focus of intense scrutiny last spring in connection with President Clinton's nomination of University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Lani Guinier to a civil rights job in the Justice Department.

Guinier, who grew up in Cambridge, had written controversial law review articles exploring the possibilities for election reform.

Cantabrigians, Scheir says, are fond of the PR system because it provides for group representation.

"It has been called the most democratic form of voting," she says.

But Harvard Professor of Government Shepsle says he thinks PR can aggravate the problem of gridlock in government because any candidate who garners a mere 10 percent of the vote will almost certainly be elected.

"I'm not convinced that having a very representative body for a City Council is superior to having a choice between which of two teams you want to run a city," Shepsle says.

PR, he explains, may promote irresponsibility in government because a candidate has a responsibility to a very small percentage of voters.

"[PR] promotes lots of irresponsible or unaccountable representation because [the candidates] represent a relatively small minority and don't need to compromise because they won't be held accountable," Shepsle says.

Perpetual Representation?

Critics say that Cambridge's system of proportional representation translates, with the help of slate voting, into "perpetual reelection."

However, experts such as Shepsle and Richie disagree, saying PR favors incumbents no more than does any other form of election.

"We're seeing that in every system it's difficult to beat incumbents," Richie says, "If any 10 percent of a group of voters back a candidate he is guaranteed a victory."

Shepsle says incumbents are frequently reelected because any electoral process depends strongly on name recognition.

"The way the system works is that people can rank ordered votes," he explains, "The key is to be well known--clearing a threshold of familiarity is difficult for newcomers."

No electoral system is perfect, still, Shepsle concedes, "This particular system has some advantages for incumbents."

For the present at least, Cambridge seems likely to stick with PR. After all in a city with a 350 year history, what's a week or two spent waiting for "official" election results?

"Those who are definitely going to make it will be known by supper time on Wednesday," says Scheir. "[The wait] is a matter of speculation and great excitement."