Some candidates can meet the quota from their "number ones"--they are then declared elected, and their surplus ballots are distributed to those who are listed second. At the same time, candidates with the fewest "number one votes" are declared defeated; their ballots are also given to their second choice. The process of elimination and redistribution continues--usually for several days--until nine candidates have received the necessary quota.

The supporters of PR claim that it assures representation of minority groups on the Council. It does; the present Council includes one Italian, one Jew, one Negro, and one Republican. However, the corollary of this representation of minority groups is that most Council candidates pitch their campaigns to a small, relatively restricted electorate. Tight control of a quota of "number ones" is the surest way to election.

Thus, City-wide issues are often shunted in favor of questions concerning a neighborhood, or even just a block. Councillors fight to get a sidewalk repaired, a traffic light installed, or a playground cleaned in their strongholds.

Take a look at Al Vellucci. He grins as a grade school drill team from East Cambridge comes to have its picture taken with the City Council. Veteran observers ask him if the children's parents are good for 50 or 60 "number ones." Al's smile broadens into an angelic beam--it's all part of the game of Cambridge politics.

Even this year's campaign is fought along such lines. While the results may mean the end of the DeGuglielmo administration, there is relatively little he can do to make his administration an issue. The election must be fought neighborhood by neighborhood, in Brattle Street, in North and East Cambridge, and throughout the City.

Only occasionally has the issue of DeGuglielmo's administration even been raised. At the Council meeting a week ago, Crane attacked the mailing of the City's 1966 annual report to every taxpayer during the election campaign. "Publishing and mailing cost for this political propaganda exceeds $10,000--the 1965 report cost $3100," a Crane ad commented.

Crane has also hit the rising City tax rates of the past two years. He said that this year's rate is up $10.50 and is also based on higher assessments. Supporters of the City Manager have replied that the higher rate was due to unavoidable welfare increases and pay raises for City employees.

Perhaps the bitterest note of the current campaign was sounded by an advertisement placed in last Thursday's Cambridge Chronicle by one Marjorie Ainsworth. The ad featured a picture of the City Manager, the names of the Council majority, and a call for their repudiation. "What a Mess," the ad concluded. Mrs. Ainsworth said Friday, "I prefer not to discuss that, but I have my reasons for it."

Nonetheless, through the smoke of the individual campaigns, certain trends emerge. The position of the Council minority apears fairly secure. Both Crane and Mahoney (an M.I.T. professor) have power bases which are relatively wide for Cambridge. They gain a sizeable amount of "number ones" from Brattle Street. Support from scattered neighborhoods of middle-class Irish also comes their way. Crane in particular appears a sure bet; he has finished in the top two for the past four elections and holds the record for number one votes 6100 in 1951.

Walter J. Sullivan, member of an old-time Cambridge political family, should have little trouble gaining re-election. In the past, he has usually been the top man. Al Vellucci slipped to fourth place in 1965, but he has campaigned hard this year to guard East Cambridge against all comers.

None of the majority five can feel as secure. Maher finished third in the last election, but his showing was largely due to number two votes from Sullivan backers. Since Maher and Sullivan are now on opposite sides of the split Council, this source of support will probably not be as fruitful this time around.

However, Maher has played up his opposition to the anti-Vietnam petition to every person within shouting distance. This should give him enough support to make it onto the Council again.

Many observers felt that Mayor Hayes, who finished ninth in 1965, was running poorly until he began his anti-hippie campaign. Since then, he has probably picked up enough votes in his North Cambridge base to edge ahead of his chief rival, Thomas W. Danehy.

However, Danehy finished only 67 votes behind Hayes in the last election. This time, he might pick up enough support to edge out a weaker Councillor, even if he finishes behind Hayes.

The advertisements of Danehy have taken the Crane line, stressing the rising tax rates of Cambridge. If Danehy gets on the Council, it would probably tip the scales in favor of the anti-DeGuglielmo forces.