Pitkin says the system is especially fair because "almost every ballot ends up being counted for a candidate the voter favors."
Robert Richie, the national director of the Center for Voting and Democracy, says that PR is being considered again in cities across the nation as a way of providing minority representation.
"PR provides fair representation for racial and ethnic districts. What it basically does is allow voters to carve out constituencies and create a district out of a similar interest groups," Richie says.
Proportional representation and other systems (another one is known as cumulative voting) that differ from the traditional two-party, one-person, one-vote system were the focus of intense scrutiny last spring in connection with President Clinton's nomination of University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Lani Guinier to a civil rights job in the Justice Department.
Guinier, who grew up in Cambridge, had written controversial law review articles exploring the possibilities for election reform.
Cantabrigians, Scheir says, are fond of the PR system because it provides for group representation.
"It has been called the most democratic form of voting," she says.
But Harvard Professor of Government Shepsle says he thinks PR can aggravate the problem of gridlock in government because any candidate who garners a mere 10 percent of the vote will almost certainly be elected.
"I'm not convinced that having a very representative body for a City Council is superior to having a choice between which of two teams you want to run a city," Shepsle says.
PR, he explains, may promote irresponsibility in government because a candidate has a responsibility to a very small percentage of voters.
"[PR] promotes lots of irresponsible or unaccountable representation because [the candidates] represent a relatively small minority and don't need to compromise because they won't be held accountable," Shepsle says.
Perpetual Representation?
Critics say that Cambridge's system of proportional representation translates, with the help of slate voting, into "perpetual reelection."
However, experts such as Shepsle and Richie disagree, saying PR favors incumbents no more than does any other form of election.
"We're seeing that in every system it's difficult to beat incumbents," Richie says, "If any 10 percent of a group of voters back a candidate he is guaranteed a victory."
Shepsle says incumbents are frequently reelected because any electoral process depends strongly on name recognition.
"The way the system works is that people can rank ordered votes," he explains, "The key is to be well known--clearing a threshold of familiarity is difficult for newcomers."
No electoral system is perfect, still, Shepsle concedes, "This particular system has some advantages for incumbents."
For the present at least, Cambridge seems likely to stick with PR. After all in a city with a 350 year history, what's a week or two spent waiting for "official" election results?
"Those who are definitely going to make it will be known by supper time on Wednesday," says Scheir. "[The wait] is a matter of speculation and great excitement."