How a 1940 electoral system reform in Cambridge made its 2025 housing breakthrough possible

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by The Boston Foundation The Best of CommonWealth Beacon  OPINION Mass. Ave. in Cambridge. (Photo via Creative Commons/Flickr by massmart)

How a 1940 electoral system reform in Cambridge made its 2025 housing breakthrough possible   November 30, 2025 By Andrew Justus and Alex Armlovich

Earlier this year, Cambridge quietly accomplished what few cities have dared: through an ambitious zoning reform, it legalized four-story buildings across nearly every neighborhood. The reform dramatically increases the city’s capacity for new housing, with projections that it could add 3,590 net new units by 2040.

This is more than just a housing “win.” It’s a triumph for Cambridge’s unique brand of representative democracy—one that balances citywide priorities with fair representation for diverse communities.

Why did Cambridge succeed where other cities have failed? The answer lies not just in zoning, but in how Cambridge elects its city council.

When cities shift from all at-large councils to district-based council seats, housing construction falls by 21 percent. This is because district- or ward-based council members are strongly motivated to block new development in their neighborhoods. When every member follows that instinct, the city builds less housing.

ADVERTISEMENT

Traditional electoral systems with all at-large seats can so thoroughly suppress minority representation that they violate the Voting Rights Act. Cities then face a dilemma: Either prioritize citywide interests like housing, or ensure fair representation for localized minority groups. Faced with this tradeoff, many housing advocates have steered clear of debates over electoral design altogether.

Cambridge City Councilor Burhan Azeem, first elected in 2021, campaigned – and won –on a citywide pro-housing platform. When we spoke to Azeem, he said, "In a district-based system, there may not be enough renters in any one district to elect a council member." In our conversation, he added, "But in an at-large system, renters from across the city can vote for candidates that reflect their priorities."

This victory was not accidental, but the product of a skilled political entrepreneur and a growing pro-housing movement, empowered by an electoral system that resolves the tradeoff between citywide needs and minority representation.

In a city with district-based representation, the political costs and benefits of development are fundamentally misaligned. The backlash to a new apartment building can be concentrated in a local council member’s district. The benefits are often spread across the entire city or region.

This imbalance creates a legislative norm of deference to the local council member on land-use matters. While the phenomenon has different names in different cities, the outcome is the same: homebuilding stops.

As then-Mayor Ed Koch warned when New York City adopted this model in 1989, it is a recipe for “land use paralysis.” In such systems, only a powerful, independently elected strong mayor can consistently champion citywide interests against the council's localized concerns.

But Cambridge has a city council-city manager form of government, which vests some of the executive power of a strong mayor system with the council, making the council’s electoral system crucial for enabling citywide coalitions.

Since 1940, Cambridge has elected its city council through an at-large ranked-choice system. Candidates win by reaching a vote threshold—just over 10 percent of ballots—ensuring that any political or demographic group with modest support can earn a seat.

That guarantee of minority representation without resorting to geographic wards is what allows Cambridge to pursue citywide goals like housing.

READ MORE

Submit an Opinion Piece We welcome informed commentary about local, state and national public policy. SUBMIT   Send a Tip Have a scoop you want to share? Click below to get in touch with the CommonWealth Beacon team. SEND A TIP

More Commentary from CommonWealth Voices

The Gettysburg Address (revised)  By David E. Stein    Abraham Lincoln speaking at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery on November 19, 1863. (Illustration via Wikimedia/Library of Congress) President Abraham Lincoln delivered his 272-word Gettysburg Address during the Civil War on November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery near where 50,000 soldiers died four months earlier. This 272-word minimalist revision addresses the uncivil war we now face.  Twelve score and nine years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.   Now we are engaged in an uncivil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and dedicated, can long endure. Each day we are met with a new battle in this war. We acknowledge the heavy price paid by generations that this nation might live in freedom. It is altogether fitting and proper that we do this. We cannot rest until the principles of democracy, decency, and the Constitution are restored.   But, in a larger sense, we cannot venerate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow our great institutions while the president desecrates and dismantles them. The brave and wise who came before expected that we would add not detract from their unfinished work. The world may little note, nor long remember the falsehood and cruelties now spoken and texted, but it will never forget the lasting damage being done here.  It is for us the living, who still believe in democracy to be dedicated to advancing this unfinished work. We must take increased devotion to this noble cause for which so many have given their last full measure of devotion. Only by doing so can we be resolved that they did not do so in vain.    Let it be our solemn request that this nation, under God, shall preserve the freedom so dearly won, free from hatred and autocratic ruin; and that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.  David E. Stein is an entrepreneur and activist living in Boston.  CommonWealth Voices is sponsored by The Boston Foundation. The Boston Foundation is deeply committed to civic leadership, and essential to our work is the exchange of informed opinions.  We are proud to partner on a platform that engages such a broad range of demographic and ideological viewpoints. E-bikes are supercharging the Bluebikes system — and that’s a good thing   By Amir Wilson On bail policy, Massachusetts must catch up  By Katy Naples-Mitchell

Published by MassINC

CommonWealth Beacon, 11 Beacon Street, Suite 500, Boston, MA 02108, United States