SALT LAKE CITY

When Utah voters trek to the polls on Tuesday, they know that it won't be the end of this election season. 

After Oct. 7, candidates, citizens and local elections officials around the state will be asked to do it all again before Nov. 4. That means printing new ballots, staffing polling places, campaigning for votes, studying the remaining candidates, voting and counting the votes. 

Conducting both primary and general municipal elections throughout Utah costs candidates, voters, and taxpayers millions of dollars. 

Political consultants and those who print campaign materials may appreciate the additional work primary elections generate. But in this era of shrinking budgets, it makes less sense to conduct two elections when one election will do. 

Under an electoral system called ranked-choice voting (also known as "instant runoff voting"), voters are asked to list candidates in their order of preference -- first choice, second choice, and so on -- instead of choosing just one. 

If no candidate receives a majority of votes, the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is declared defeated. The ballots are then recounted and allocated to the remaining candidates according to the highest ranked choice that remains. The process continues until one candidate has a majority. 

By replacing primary and general elections with ranked-choice voting, all participants save both time and money. 

Ranked-choice voting offers other benefits as well. Because it mimics a series of runoff elections, courts have held that the process complies with the "one person, one vote" rule. 

Among the many reasons offered by the Center for Voting and Democracy (http://www.fairvote.org) in support of ranked-choice voting is its elimination of the "spoiler effect," which occurs when more than two candidates seek one office. By ranking candidates in their order of preference, citizens can vote for their favorite candidate without worrying about electing their least favorite candidate. 

Voters in California face the prospect of recalling Gov. Gray Davis by a majority and electing his replacement -- from among 135 candidates -- with a plurality, an arguably undemocratic result. Ranked-choice voting ensures a majority winner. 

In addition, experience shows that ranked-choice voting civilizes the dialogue among political candidates. The simple reason: Candidates have an incentive to find common ground with their opponents' supporters to court their second-choice votes. Mud-slinging is not a winning strategy under ranked-choice voting. 

Is it too complex for voters? Countries around the world that have used ranked-choice voting for decades, and have higher rates of voter turnout than does the United States, report ballot spoilage rates no higher than occurs in most other democracies. 

The Utah Republican Party has successfully used ranked-choice voting at its past two conventions to elect party officers and nominate county, state, and federal candidates. Students across the United States, from Stanford University to the University of Maryland, are adopting ranked-choice voting for their student body elections. 

It is understandable that some elected officials may not be sympathetic to tinkering with the rules that put them in office. Fortunately, Utah law allows us to modify our local election rules and implement ranked-choice voting by initiative if necessary. 

In the meantime, it can't hurt to ask candidates how the campaign season can be shortened and the way we conduct local elections improved. Many of the winners and losers will be asking themselves those questions after Tuesday. 

J. Robert Latham ([email protected]) is a Salt Lake Valley lawyer