Lexington. Whenever a member of academia proposes anything labeled "reform," seasoned political practitioners wince. Speak specifically about "electoral reform" and you have an uphill battle on your hands from the get-go. Nonetheless, a good balance among practical politics, comparative political studies, and a bit of math can actually prove useful when folks contemplate creating a new electoral system such as that pending before the General Assembly for Richmond.

In November, Richmond voters overwhelmingly stated their desire to govern themselves via a directly elected Mayor. This tidal wave of democratic spirit should therefore be rewarded with a cost-effective method of electing the Mayor.

HB 62 proposes a two-step electoral process: "The person receiving the most votes in a majority of City Council districts shall be elected. Should no one be elected, a run-off election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in December between the two persons receiving the highest total of votes citywide. The person receiving the most votes in a majority of City Council districts shall be elected."

IN GENERAL, every electoral system has its costs and benefits. This one is no different. But it does entail a fixed cost that could be avoided: the cost of the runoff election.

In theory, runoff elections guarantee that whoever wins will be able to claim that he or she is supported by a majority of the electorate. The problem is that in two-round runoff systems such as that proposed in HB 62, turnout plummets in the second-round election. As a result, whoever wins in the second round may not actually receive a true majority of the vote.

I've studied different electoral systems used around the world. While I am pretty skeptical about calls for "reform" (invariably, reforms create as many new problems as they solve), I think the proposed runoff system for Mayor could be made more cost-effective.

In the proposed system, if more than two candidates run for Mayor, it is quite possible that no one will receive a majority of the vote - in five districts or citywide. If this happens, it will result in more ballots, more campaigning, more time, and quite possibly fewer citizens voting in the runoff election (unless Richmond bucks a trend that plagues runoffs worldwide).

Instead of using a second-round runoff, why not use the instant runoff method of elections? It would entail asking voters simply to enumerate their choices for Mayor. If no candidate received a majority of first-place ballots, the candidate with the fewest first-place votes would be dropped and the second-place votes on his/her ballots would be redistributed among the other candidates. This process would continue until one candidate received a majority of the votes cast. The beauty of this system is that it removes the costly necessity of having to organize and campaign in a second runoff election.

I DON'T MAKE this recommendation quixotically. There would of course be start-up costs such as alter- ing or replacing existing voting equipment to accommodate this sort of election system. But Cambridge, Massachusetts, has used a type of instant runoff system for 50 years. San Francisco recently adopted a similar one.

I realize of course that Cambridge and San Francisco are not the strongest selling points for the rest of the country. Using them to sell electoral reform in Richmond runs the same risk as the poor cook in the Pace Picante sauce ad who gets strung up by Southwestern ranchers for trying to feed them salsa made in New York City. Still, in an era of skyrocketing campaign expenses, IRV might be something to consider. Regardless of who else uses it, its positive impact on election expenses can't be ignored.

Mark Rush teaches politics at Washington and Lee University.