In 1950 the City of Cambridge went mayorless for five months while the city councilors played the games that keep politics interesting. No one on this year's city council thinks the present mayoral squabble will go on that long, but they're trying.

After five sets of ballots at this week's meeting and four at one last week, no councilor has garnered the five votes needed to become mayor.

The nine-member council is composed of four members of Cambridge Convention '77, a liberal slate, four more-or-less conservative independents, and A1 Vellucci. And any one of them could become mayor--if he or she gets a clear majority of votes from the rest of the council.

On all the ballots so far, the four liberals have voted for one of their own number, albeit a different one each time, and the Independents have split their votes among each other.

Thomas Danehy, an Independent councilor, has received his own vote and that of long-time Cambridge pol Walter J. Sullivan on each ballot. Kevin P. Crane, another Independent, has voted "present" on almost all the ballots, while Lawrence Frisoli, scion of a powerful local family, seems to be voting at random. And the inimitable Vellucci keeps voting for himself.

Two years ago, the four liberals on the council finally gave up after 21 ballots, giving their votes to Vellucci in return of his support on key issues and his promise to vote for Saundra Graham, one of the liberals, for vice-mayor.

The liberals say they are not yet ready to go that route this year, and will keep trying to convince at least one of the independents to cast his vote for one of the liberals.

Why all the fuss about electing a mayor? Cambridge's mayor gets to cast the deciding vote on the six-member School Committee, chair the city council, and take home an extra $1000 in pay. He also gets the intangible psychic rewards of being head honcho in Cambridge.

More ballots, anyone?