A Window Into Voting Patterns in Cambridge
Howard Fain
In 1970 the Massachusetts Legislature
passed legislation in response to a housing shortage that allowed communities to implement
rent control procedures. Only three Massachusetts communities instituted and maintained
rent control: Cambridge, Boston and Brookline.
It is generally recognized that Cambridge
kept the most stringent controls; it is also the city in which a candidate's position on
rent control is fundamental, if not absolutely primary, for most voters. Brookline
modified its program to vacancy decontrol in the 1980s at a town meeting, but it has not
been a defining issue in ongoing political debate. Boston had a modified rent control
program, which also has not been an issue in political campaigns.
Until the statewide rent control question
in 1994, there had been just one popular rent control vote in Cambridge: in 1989. There
were municipal elections every two years, however, in which a majority of city councilors
elected each time have supported the continuation of the rent control program. Cambridge
has used the choice voting (aka preference voting) form of proportional representation
since 1941.
The Cambridge Civic Association (CCA) is
the most well established of the pro-rent control organizations endorsing candidates.
Others include the Cambridge Tenants' Organization, which frequently cross-endorses CCA
candidates, but has also endorsed candidates who are decidedly non-CCA on other matters
but who also support rent control. At least one candidate who supports rent control, yet
opposes the CCA is usually elected.
There are nine city councilors in
Cambridge. At least five pro-rent control councilors have been elected in every election
since its adoption -- and sometimes six -- even though sometimes the CCA has elected only
four. The flip side, of course, is that there are generally four, or sometimes three,
councilors elected who are opposed to the Cambridge rent control program.
Such consistent results make sense with
choice voting elections, given that rent control is a defining out-front issue in
Cambridge elections, and choice voting provides fair representation to all sides. This
theory is borne out by closer examination of recent elections.
Measuring the Fairness of Choice Voting
In 1992 and 1993, the property owners
tried a different tack. They went to court to challenge the rent control ordinance, and
lost. They asked the state legislature to overturn or sharply amend the original enabling
statute, and lost again.
They then began a drive to ban rent
control statewide, through an initiative petition, and succeeded in gathering the
signatures to place it on the 1994 state ballot. Although other real estate interests
joined with them, Cambridge property owners played a major role: it was generally
understood that Cambridge's system was the lightning rod for the entire process.
During the campaign, many in Boston and
Brookline might have been surprised to learn that the ballot question would affect their
communities. Not so in Cambridge, where the initiative was simply bringing the old war
onto a larger battlefield. The fight for votes would happen elsewhere -- it was not likely
that a lot of minds would be changed in Cambridge by this particular campaign.
In public statements, the Cambridge
property owners explained their decision to bring their fight outside the city borders
(going first to court, then legislature, and finally, initiative) because two-thirds of
the city residents are tenants, and they had given up on ever seeing a majority of
councilors elected who favored their position.
They compared their cause to federal civil
rights enforcement: just because a local majority favors a position, and translates that
into a majority of legislators who support the same position, does not make it right. Rent
control proponents countered with support for the sanctity of home rule, beyond their
belief that the system offered important protections for the city's population.
Both sides, then, expressed their belief
that the majority of councilors elected under the choice voting system accurately
reflected the wishes of a majority of the city's voters. Further, the pro-rent control
majority was not just from one bloc, but accurately reflected the rent control feelings of
both CCA and Independent (e.g., non-CCA) voters.
Both sides would also recognize that the
system accurately reflected the wishes of the minority opposed to the rent control system.
Among this continuously elected minority were some councilors quite virulent in their
opposition to the Cambridge rent control program.
Both sides, then, expressed their belief that the majority of councilors elected under the choice voting system accurately reflected the wishes of a majority of the city's voters. |
In 1989, a Cambridge-only Proposition
to repeal rent control was defeated, 66% to 34%. In 1994, the rent control question,
banning rent control in Massachusetts, was approved statewide with 51%, but again was
rejected in Cambridge, 58% to 42%. Voters in Boston and Brookline also rejected the
question, by narrower margins.
With some variations election to election,
these results closely approximate the percentage of voters who support pro and anti-rent
control candidates in Cambridge elections, either through first choice or later-transfer
ballots.
Since imposition of rent control, council
members supporting rent control have constituted between 55% (5 of 9), and 66% (6 of 9) of
the council. In the elections surrounding the 1989 rent control question, it was generally
six of nine councilors. The 66% support of rent control, as shown by the direct vote on
the question, is right on target.
Some have noted that, approaching the 1993
elections, an incumbent non-CCA rent control supporter was hedging his support. He was
re-elected, but his shift certainly parallels the diminished 58%-42% Cambridge vote for
rent control on the statewide question in 1994.
Voter Flexibility
Choice voting elections in Cambridge
accurately represent the interests of the city's voters. Since there always are more than
just five or six candidates supporting rent control, the transfer process allows pro-rent
control voters to delineate their choices along this line, and then select preferences
based on any other matter, such as neighborhood association, general political alignments
and race.
The same goes for the anti-side, whose
consistent representation on the council, and thus in public debate, has been assured by
the choice voting system. With at least 58-42% support for such a major issue (higher in
the past), it is easy to imagine the pro-rent control forces having virtually swept all
seats under majoritarian election systems.
Choice voting of course is neutral on
questions of rent control -- as with any political issue or ideology. It simply allows
voters to express their views more accurately by giving them more flexibility than the
simplistic, all-or-nothing choices that voters usually have with winner-take-all systems.
Howard Fain is president of the Fair
Ballot Alliance of Massachusetts and Secretary of the Board of The Center for Voting and
Democracy.