The most expensive mayoral race in Vancouver's history is over. The bad news: It took two elections, hundreds of thousands of dollars and a fair amount of mud-slinging to produce a winner. The good news: Vancouver has the ability to cut election costs and campaign spending as well as restore civility to the electoral process in one fell swoop.

In 1999, Vancouver voters approved a charter amendment allowing the city to use instant runoff voting for local elections. Instant runoff, as the name implies, would allow the city to circumvent Washington's quirky and cumbersome two-round runoff system. Current law requires that candidates for nonpartisan offices in Vancouver run in a primary when there are three or more candidates on the ballot. Then, regardless of the outcome, the top two vote-getters run again in the general election; even if one candidate wins an overwhelming majority of the vote in the primary.

It is hard to imagine a bigger or more unnecessary waste of resources.

If this is for the voters' benefit, they don't seem very appreciative. Despite a rare, hotly contested mayoral race only 31% of registered voters cast their ballots last Tuesday and even fewer -- 23% -- voted in the primary. There are those who say having candidates run in two elections allows voters a second look at the candidates but the voter turnout rates tell us that most voters aren't even looking once. And while the voters may not be interested in participating in two separate elections, they're still stuck with paying for them.

Running in two elections is also an unnecessary burden on candidates -- whether they are incumbents trying to perform their official duties while campaigning for months on end, or whether they are challengers having to compete twice with entrenched officeholders while balancing work and family. If communities want to entice the best and brightest among them to step up for public service, the process shouldn't be so onerous and unappealing.

Little changed between the two elections in Vancouver other than the fact that successful challenger Tim Leavitt increased his margin of victory over the incumbent mayor, Royce Pollard, in the second election.Similarly, the two council races requiring second elections both saw the primaries' winning candidates cruise to a second victory in the general election.

Instant runoff voting would combine Vancouver's two elections into one, eliminating one costly and unnecessary election. With instant runoff, instead of voting for just one candidate, voters rank the candidates in order of preference: first choice, second choice, third choice and so on. A candidate who wins a majority of first choice rankings is elected. If no candidate wins an initial majority, the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated and the voters who supported that candidate have their votes count for their second choice.

Reporters covering instant runoff elections in San Francisco and Minneapolis have observed that it reduces mud-slinging because it encourages candidates to cooperate with their opponents in search of second-choice votes.

Instant runoff voting improves elections while simultaneously cutting their costs. In this challenging financial climate, that's one deal that cannot be overlooked.