Were it a national election, the pollsters would know by now; their weekend results, their momentum charts, would be able to predict, within a point or two, how it was going to break. But no-one does any polling in Cambridge, so everyone worries.

And if the pre-election ignorance breeds insecurity, it also makes for great fun. For weeks now, the standard question in Cambridge political circles has been: "So, huh, how do you think its going to end up?"

One reason for the interest is simple: elections in Cambridge mean that the philosophical and administrative centers of power are up for grabs. All nine council slots (and all seven chairs on the school committee) will be filled. should one council seat stop holding a liberal derriere and end up under a more conservative posterior, the following things might well occur: rent control, the program perhaps most responsible--for better or for worse--for the way Cambridge looks today could gradually disappear; condominium conversion could start to boom again as it did in the late 1970s; strict zoning aimed at neighborhood preservation could be loosened; and the administration set up by former city manager James L. Sullivan could be dismantled or weakened. That's why people care, on both sides. That's why this has been the most expensive election in city history, and one of the hardest fought.

The fighting, though, has been hard to see. On the surface, it's been a placid campaign, free of most of the charges and rumors that have marked other autumns. But--in part because the race seems more wide open than usual--this year has seen infighting among ideological lookalikes, and sharp divisions within once-cozy coalitions.

If a major change is to spring from this election, it will come in one of three ways: Either the Cambridge Civic Association (CCA) will win another seat, the neighborhood-oriented and more conservative Independents will add one, or an unaffiliated moderate (first-time campaigner Mary Allen Wilkes has the only real chance) will replace either a liberal or a conservative. Currently the liberal CCA controls four of the nine council slots. Their neighborhood-based rivals, the Independents, control four. And in the middle--nominally an Independent, but closer on most issues to the CCA--is Alfred E. Vellucci, the senior member of the council.

For a time last spring it appeared that the CCA had an odds-on shot at the fifth seat. Independent incumbent Kevin Crane '72 announced he wasn't running for another term; CCA leaders announced a slate of candidates that looked stronger than any in recent history. It included not only the four incumbents--David Sullivan, Francis H. Duehay '55, David Wylie, and Saundra Graham--but also three challengers given a chance of winning seats--Alice Wolf (who gained a record number of votes in her last school committee race), Wendy Abt (who ran a strong race for State Senate and enjoys high name recognition), and Mary Ellen Preusser (a former councilor).

Now it appears, though, that the momentum may have turned. A strong challenge by "condo candidate" Wilkes may well steal CCA votes votes; the Independents have waged a more unified slate campaign than in past years; and internal divisions within the CCA have taken their toll. The chance for the elusive fifth seat that would give the CCA control of city politics is slimmer now than it was a few months ago, but is it not an impossibility.

Only a few incumbent candidates seem safe; probably the two safest are named Sullivan. Walter J.--the patriarch of the Independent clan, who has won the most votes in ten straight city elections--will waltz into office with his usual ease. And David Sullivan--who came within 20 votes of Walter's total during the 1979 election, is also but guaranteed a slot, thanks to the solid tenant organization he has built. Most likely they will run at the head of the pack again: Walter is intent on keeping his top-of-the-ticket showing intact, so intent that he has been rounding up support from former Crane supporters, votes the might have been of more help to some of the weaker Independents.

Under Cambridge's complex proportional representation voting system, "number one" votes are what count. But if a candidates does well enough (or badly enough), his votes are "transferred" to the candidate marked number two (see page for a more detailed explantions). If either Sullivan "makes quota" (gets ten percent of the total vote) in the first count, their surplus will be distributed to the next candidates. There is only one maxim to remember here: CCA votes are much more likely to transfer to other CCA candidates. Therefore, if David Sullivan and Walter Sullivan each went a few hundred over the quota, when their extra ballots were redistributed, David's would likely aid other CCA candidates more than Walter's would help other Independents. The same is also true later in the week-long count, when candidates are eliminated one by one for having too few votes. When a CCA candidate is eliminated, the ballot is likely to swell the total of someone else on the slate; when an Independent is eliminated, the ballot often "dies because only one or two other names are marked on it.

Several candidates besides the Sullivans are likely to do well enough on the first count that their election will be all but assured. Duehay has won friends in all parts of the city during his two years as mayor (the legend in Cambridge politics is that the mayoralty is worth 500 votes) and should finish strong. Duehay came within 200 votes of making quota in 1979, and could conceivably do the same this time.

But the number one vote totals of all the CCA candidates that depend heavily on upper-class West Cambridge--that is, all the CCA candidates except David Sullivan, and minor challenger Bob White--will be reduced by the strong slate. Traditional Duehay voters now have an attractive new variety of faces to choose from, and almost certainly some will defect.

Just how many will drop their support for the incumbents remains to be seen, though. Alice Wolf, for instance, could run very very strong. She rolled up 5490 votes in her run for school committee two years ago; if she held them all in the council race, she'd make quota twice over. But everyone who backed her for school committee two years ago voted for someone else, number one for city council--and most city voters take the council contest more seriously than the school race. If her voters prove loyal to her, Wolf will be a leader of the CCA candidates. Even if the majority of her school supporters vote for someone else, she enjoys such high name recognition that she is very, very likely to win a seat on the council.

Saundra Graham--the only Black on the council--also seems a safe bet. The only serious rival for Black votes in the city is Alvin Thompson, who two years ago got less than half of Graham's total, despite the CCA's endorsement. This year, the CCA dropped its support of Thompson, endorsing only one Black candidate, Graham. And the absence of Severlin Singleton--a Black who picked up 547 votes in 1979--should also help Graham, who won more of his transfer votes than Thompson.

Among the rest of the CCA slate, there seem to be three candidates fighting for one--and possibly two--jobs. Only one, David Wylie, can use the power of an incumbent and he has done it well, staking out his own ground over the past year with a well-publicized campaign against nuclear arms. He has not hesitated to take credit for the pamphlet the council produced, largely at his behest, calling for disarmament. And he has also not hesitated to picture himself as the weakest incumbent, apparently in hopes that supporters of other candidates or undecided voters will come to his aid at the last minute, (a tactic that saved him in 1979). Wylie may not be as weak as he claims; using primarily his own funds, Wylie has spent more than any other candidate in the race through mid-October, and seems to be running a stronger campaign than two years ago. Still, if an incumbent loses it will most likely be this soft-spoken lawyer.

Many observers thought Wylie would disappear in 1979; instead, Mary Ellen Preusser went down the tubes. Preusser began her reelection campaign many months ago, but it is unclear how successful she has been. Though she has mounted a visible effort, especially in West Cambridge and in politically unpredictable Cambridgeport, Preusser has been hurt by two factors: her biggest issue, university expansion, was largely settled last summer when the city council finally adopted zoning laws to restrict the growth of tax-exempt institutions. And the plethora of women candidates will fragment the feminist vote.