"It's definitely nerve-wracking after the No. 1's come in," Harris said.

"But we knew the areas we were targeting and that we had strong precincts still to come in."

Harris' brother and campaign manager Phillip Harris said that although the No. 1 votes were indicative, voters who made his sister their No. 2 choice put her over the top.

"I think we did pretty well across the city, but the number-two votes were what got her there," he said.

Although both Harris and Turkel praised the new voting system's efficiency and early delivery of results, Councillor Galluccio said he hopes the current system is a stepping stone to quicker, more user-friendly Cambridge voting.

Galluccio suggested increasing voter support at polling stations.

"We need more assistance for individuals," he said.

"One of the best ways to increase voter participation in elections is to get voter results in a timely fashion," Galluccio added, criticizing the computerized system for releasing results too late last Wednesday for major news media to cover them.

"It's a disappointment because that was the main reason for doing it," said Galluccio of computerizing the system.

"If we want to get newer residents to vote, we have to have the results [early] the next day."

Although one of two vote-tallying computer terminals was ruled inoperative the afternoon of election day, Neighbor said the single terminal was more than adequate.

"We had originally hoped to cut the time in half with two computers, but it still only took about three and a half hours to total all of the memory cards--about five minutes per card," Neighbor said.

Both the scanning technology used to collect votes and the PR Master software that tallied votes the day after election day ran smoothly this year. Although Neighbor declined to comment on the system's future use, Neighbor "appreciated its performance," on election night.

"It makes our lives so much easier," she said.

"And I know is that the candidates were pleased with being able to get the results so soon."