A quick count for L.A.

With any luck, the campaign for mayor of Los Angeles will end Tuesday in a decisive victory for one candidate or the other. Then the winner can begin the task of building an administration and filling the ranks of commission appointments that will form the city’s leadership core for the next four — or possibly eight — years. But this is a close race, and many residents have voted by mail or will cast ballots provisionally or by other means rather than simply going to a polling place and inking the ballot. It may take some time to count those votes.

What, then, if there is no clear winner on election night? The Los Angeles city clerk’s office, unlike many agencies that tally ballots, says it will not provide updates on the count as it goes about its work after the polls close. Instead, it plans to wait 21 days and then announce a winner.

The clerk has rational reasons for this approach. To certify a final count, the clerk’s office engages in a thorough, time-consuming review. Ballots dropped off at polling places on election day need to be examined; the voter rolls are checked; provisional ballots have to be tallied; a hand count of 1% of the ballots submitted is run to compare the work of the automated readers against the judgment of humans. Rather than risk releasing information that later turns out to be incorrect, the clerk prefers to take the time allotted to it under the city charter and release one set of definitive results.

ENDORSEMENTS: Los Angeles City Elections 2013

That’s all understandable and avoids the chaotic whipsawing of daily results that might favor Controller Wendy Greuel at some points and Councilman Eric Garcetti at others (without necessarily meaning much about the final outcome). But it will also introduce a long delay into what already is a short transition. Under the clerk’s plan, if the election is not decided on election night, the winner won’t be announced until mid-June, and the new mayor takes office on July 1. That’s precious little time to form an administration.

At the very least, the clerk ought to announce the results before the 21 days are up if it becomes clear that one candidate is so far ahead — say by a few thousand votes with less than that left to count — that both might agree the election was over, and the winner could proceed to governing.

The city clerk is right to be concerned, first and foremost, with securing an accurate count of the votes cast in this election. But if it can identify a winner without waiting 21 days, the city would be better off knowing who it is.