Cambridge Elections

Cambridge voters will go to the polls tomorrow to elect nine city councillors, six school committee members, and to decide the future of the electoral system unique to the City--Proportional Representation.

For the City Council, the CRIMSON strongly endorses James McGovern '64. A first time challenger, he has waged one of the most intensive campaigns of the year and deserves support for a number of reasons.

* His background enables him to understand and deal effectively with the two major elements in the City--the university and "non-university" communities. McGovern grew up in the Central Square area, attended Harvard as an undergraduate, and then spent a year at the School of Education. This varied experience has been one of the keys to success for some of the citys most energetic and creative public officials--for example, Mayor Edward A. Crane '35 and former Mayor Joseph A. DeGuglielmo '29.

* McGovern is young (22 years old). Though age is in itself no recommendation, his youth, combined with his energy and academic training, ought to inject new ideas into a council which often finds itself precoccupied with its own cliches.

To win, McGovern must draw support from both major elements of the City. He is endorsed by the Cambridge Civic Association and will need a substantial number of "number one" votes from the CCA areas to win. We believe that McGovern could eventually emerge as one of Cambridge's most creative public officials and that giving him a "number one" vote would be the most constructive use of the ballot this year.

In addition to McGovern, we urge consideration of the other CCA-endorsed candidates. We warn, however, against categorizing the CCA-backed candidates as the "good guys" and the unendorsed independents as the "bad guys." A number of independents on the current council are as conscientious and progressive as the CCA members. In particular, we would cite councillor Daniel J. Hayes Jr. and urge support for him high on the ballot.

For the School Committee, the CRIMSON endorses Francis H. Duehay '55. Duehay is running for his second term, and his contributions over the past two years--especially in promoting cooperation between the Graduate School of Education and the Cambridge school system--have been significant. We would also commend the rest of the CCA slate--Mrs. Barbara Ackerman, Gustove M. Solomons, and David A. Wylie.

In the long run, however, the most important issue decided at the polls this fall may be the fate of Proportional Representation. Cambridge has had PR since 1941, and at one time or another 22 cities across the country have used this type of electoral system. Cambridge is now the only one left--a fact pounded to death by PR's opponents.

We do not believe that is relevant; nor do we believe the fact that some cities, including New York, are considering instituting PR is relevant to the debate in Cambridge. The issue ought to be decided solely on PR's performance in Cambridge, and the possibility of replacing it with a system of plurality voting.

Using PR, a voter on the ballot lists the candidates in the order of his preferance. A pre-determined quota (for the city council, it's one tenth the total vote plus one) of the vote is needed for election. Men who have enough "number one" votes are automatically declared elected; their surplus ballots are then redistributed and the ballots of those with the fewest "number one" votes are also redistributed to those second on the list. The process continues until the proper number of office holders receive the quota.

What opponents of PR would like is a regular plurality system. They have proposed that primaries be held, with the top 18 candidates (or 12 for the school board) held over for the November general election ballot. Half of these would then be elected.

The PR referendum, in essence, asks whether the people of Cambridge would prefer plurality voting. Thus, to keep PR, one must vote NO, and this is what we advise.

Thus far, the use of PR has meant there is no dominant force on either the school committee or the council. The independents hold a 5-4 majority on the council, and because Mayor Edward A. Crane sits on the school committee, CCA-endorsed candidates hold a 4-3 majority.

PR has provided Cambridge with honest, though often-times sluggish government. Because there is no dominant political power, showdown issues are often sidestepped. Only when some sort of full or partial consensus has been reached is progress made, and this is admittedly a slow process. By the same token, it guards against excesses and protects the interest of many of the city's minorities--ethnic groups as well as the city's biggest minority, the "university-oriented" community. In a city as diversified as Cambridge, there is a lot to be said for having the broad representation that PR provides.

Those who attack PR claim that plurality voting would make city-wide issues a real part of campaigning. In addition, they say that plurality voting would provide more decisive leadership because councillors would feel responsible to the whole city--not just to small segments. Issues, unfortunately, are not so easily developed in city elections. Look at New York.

If Cambridge were suffering because of poor leaders one might argue for decisive change. But it is not. The City progresses slowly but steadily. Plurality voting could bring powerful leadership--but there is nothing that guarantees the new leadership would lead the city rapidly in the right direction. In fact, we believe that new leadership might do things decisively, but do them wrongly--and perhaps at the expense of the City's minorities.