By Alex Fleming
Published November 8th 2005 in Cambridge Day
Communities across the country are voting today, but Cambridge is the only one doing it this way.
This is the only city in the country using proportional representation to elect city councilors and school committee members.
"I live in Somerville," Ivan Schneider said yesterday. "I'd move to Cambridge, but it's too complicated to vote there."
Schneider was impressed, though, by the assertion that proportional representation discourages negative campaigning because candidates don't want to turn off voters who choose other candidates - since it's in their interest to be that voter's second choice.
And proportional representation isn't that complicated.
Well, it's a little complicated.
In contrast to winner-take-all voting, proportional representation allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, and that's how ballots are sorted. Once a candidate reaches the "quota", calculated by dividing the total number of ballots cast plus one by the number of positions to be elected plus one, the candidates' additional ballots are redistributed among the remaining candidates according to the voter's next preference.
A voter education forum discussing proportional representation was held Sunday at the Harvard Science Center. Jude Stull, the chairman of the Harvard Extension School Democrats and a Cambridge native, organized the forum.
"Good government costs more than money. It requires the deliberate effort over time that some call vigilance," Stull said.
Mayor Michael Sullivan and candidates Craig Kelly and Bill Hees attended. The forum also included a lively presentation by George Goverman, the auditor of municipal elections, and Robert Winters, who runs the Cambridge Civil Journal site on the World Wide Web.
The call for proportional representation voting was a central theme in the progressive movement of the early 20th Century.
Progressives who advocated child law labor reform, antimonopoly legislation and advocates for women's suffrage saw proportional representation as a key government reformt hat would break up the domination of the "party machines" and ensure adequate representation of minorities.
Two dozen American cities, including Cambridge, adopted some form of proportional representation during the first half of the 20th Century. Cmabridge held its first such election in 1942. Every city except Cambridge has repealed proportional representation, which advocates attribute to political pressure and lawsuits levied by the major parties that lost influence under the system.
Meanwhile, Cambridge's electoral system draws attention from countries such as New Zealand, Argentina, Mongolia and Italy. According to statistics compiled by Mount Holyoke College, 21 of 28 advanced western democracies in Western Europe use some form of proportional representation.
Studies show that proportional representation produces fairer results, alleviating the tendency of winner-take-all voting to overrepresent the majority and underrepresent the minority. Proponents also argue that proportional representation minimizes wasted votes. The ballot transfer process ensures that most people's votes actually elect someone to office.
This is the only city in the country using proportional representation to elect city councilors and school committee members.
"I live in Somerville," Ivan Schneider said yesterday. "I'd move to Cambridge, but it's too complicated to vote there."
Schneider was impressed, though, by the assertion that proportional representation discourages negative campaigning because candidates don't want to turn off voters who choose other candidates - since it's in their interest to be that voter's second choice.
And proportional representation isn't that complicated.
Well, it's a little complicated.
In contrast to winner-take-all voting, proportional representation allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, and that's how ballots are sorted. Once a candidate reaches the "quota", calculated by dividing the total number of ballots cast plus one by the number of positions to be elected plus one, the candidates' additional ballots are redistributed among the remaining candidates according to the voter's next preference.
A voter education forum discussing proportional representation was held Sunday at the Harvard Science Center. Jude Stull, the chairman of the Harvard Extension School Democrats and a Cambridge native, organized the forum.
"Good government costs more than money. It requires the deliberate effort over time that some call vigilance," Stull said.
Mayor Michael Sullivan and candidates Craig Kelly and Bill Hees attended. The forum also included a lively presentation by George Goverman, the auditor of municipal elections, and Robert Winters, who runs the Cambridge Civil Journal site on the World Wide Web.
The call for proportional representation voting was a central theme in the progressive movement of the early 20th Century.
Progressives who advocated child law labor reform, antimonopoly legislation and advocates for women's suffrage saw proportional representation as a key government reformt hat would break up the domination of the "party machines" and ensure adequate representation of minorities.
Two dozen American cities, including Cambridge, adopted some form of proportional representation during the first half of the 20th Century. Cmabridge held its first such election in 1942. Every city except Cambridge has repealed proportional representation, which advocates attribute to political pressure and lawsuits levied by the major parties that lost influence under the system.
Meanwhile, Cambridge's electoral system draws attention from countries such as New Zealand, Argentina, Mongolia and Italy. According to statistics compiled by Mount Holyoke College, 21 of 28 advanced western democracies in Western Europe use some form of proportional representation.
Studies show that proportional representation produces fairer results, alleviating the tendency of winner-take-all voting to overrepresent the majority and underrepresent the minority. Proponents also argue that proportional representation minimizes wasted votes. The ballot transfer process ensures that most people's votes actually elect someone to office.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.