Computer the Big Winner in Citywide Election

Last Tuesday's municipal election inaugurated a new, computerized voting system in Cambridge which, according to candidates and others involved, revolutionized election night.

No longer confined by the slow, hand-tallying process that brought the announcement of winners four days after ballots were cast, the Election Commission last week announced tentative tallies on election night itself for the first time in Cambridge history.

The proportional representation system allows city councillors and School Committee members--all of whom are at-large representatives--to claim seats once they reach a quorum of first choice votes.

In order to officially claim one of nine city council seats at the first count on election night, candidates for City Council had to reach a quorum of 1,688 votes, 2,341 for School Committee. Quorums were determined by the number of eligible voters.

Although the first vote count included only half of the city's 42 precincts, Teresa S. Neighbor, executive director of the Cambridge Election Commission, said the tentative results could be used to speculate about candidates' citywide popularity.

Incumbent Councillor Anthony D. Galluccio was the No. 1 candidate at first count, with 2,449 No. 1 votes. He was followed by incumbents Francis H. Duehay '55 with 1,982; Katherine Triantafillou with 1,749; Timothy J. Toomey Jr. with 1,740 and Michael A. Sullivan with 1,699.

Kathleen L. Born, Henrietta E. Davis, Kenneth E. Reeves '72 and Mayor Sheila Doyle Russell eventually reached quorum through the redistribution of votes under the proportional system.

Alice L. Turkel was the only School Committee candidate to reach quorum at first tally with 2,684 votes. She was followed after subsequent counts by Susana M. Segat; E. Denise Simmons; challenger Robin A. Harris, who unseated incumbent Alfred Fantini; David P. Maher and Joseph G. Grassi.

Both candidates and school committee members praised the computerized voting system, which stood the test of election night stress.

"There were really a lot less problems than I thought there would be," Simmons said.

Simmons fondly recalled the old election style, with parties and political debates spread out during a week-long vote tally, but said the new technology is a definite plus for Cambridge voters. However, she cautioned voters who might interpret election-night vote tallies as final results.

"You can't sit there and judge preliminary info," Simmons said, noting that many of her "strong precincts" were not tallied in the first count.

Turkel, the top vote-getter for school committee, said interpreting the new first-count results proved challenging.

"At one point we didn't think Denise [Simmons] was going to make it, but then she came in third and we were knocked off our feet," Turkel said.

One of those closely watching the votes move on election night was School Committee challenger Harris, who gained a 209-vote lead on incumbent Fantini in the first-vote tally.

"It's definitely nerve-wracking after the No. 1's come in," Harris said.

"But we knew the areas we were targeting and that we had strong precincts still to come in."

Harris' brother and campaign manager Phillip Harris said that although the No. 1 votes were indicative, voters who made his sister their No. 2 choice put her over the top.

"I think we did pretty well across the city, but the number-two votes were what got her there," he said.

Although both Harris and Turkel praised the new voting system's efficiency and early delivery of results, Councillor Galluccio said he hopes the current system is a stepping stone to quicker, more user-friendly Cambridge voting.

Galluccio suggested increasing voter support at polling stations.

"We need more assistance for individuals," he said.

"One of the best ways to increase voter participation in elections is to get voter results in a timely fashion," Galluccio added, criticizing the computerized system for releasing results too late last Wednesday for major news media to cover them.

"It's a disappointment because that was the main reason for doing it," said Galluccio of computerizing the system.

"If we want to get newer residents to vote, we have to have the results [early] the next day."

Although one of two vote-tallying computer terminals was ruled inoperative the afternoon of election day, Neighbor said the single terminal was more than adequate.

"We had originally hoped to cut the time in half with two computers, but it still only took about three and a half hours to total all of the memory cards--about five minutes per card," Neighbor said.

Both the scanning technology used to collect votes and the PR Master software that tallied votes the day after election day ran smoothly this year. Although Neighbor declined to comment on the system's future use, Neighbor "appreciated its performance," on election night.

"It makes our lives so much easier," she said.

"And I know is that the candidates were pleased with being able to get the results so soon."