Good news, San Franciscans! By the time you go to bed on Tuesday, this tedious and uninspiring election will be over.

We won’t yet know who will be the next mayor because mail-in ballots postmarked Tuesday will count, and tallying the results under the city’s ranked-choice voting system is expected to take at least several days.

But we will at least be able to breathe a sigh of relief that our mailboxes will no longer be filled with slick campaign mailers. Instead, they’ll return to their standard purpose: serving as a repository for Bed, Bath & Beyond coupons.

Thankfully, campaign mailers are slowly going the way of landlines and the Yellow Pages. More consultants are creating online ads, because they’re cheaper to distribute. (I even noticed a Jane Kim for Mayor ad while listening to Michael Franti on Pandora, which seemed pretty savvy.)

“Postage is expensive,” explained political consultant Jim Ross, who is working on behalf of the Yes on Prop. C campaign to raise taxes on commercial landlords to pay for child care and an independent expenditure committee funded by Service Employees International Union Local 1021 to support Kim.

“This is the least amount of direct mail that we’ve ever sent,” Ross continued. “If I have a client with $5,000 or $10,000 to spend, it’s not very efficient to do a piece of direct mail, but I can do a nice little web video and share that with a targeted universe of voters.”

Still, there have been plenty of campaign flyers landing in my mailbox in Glen Park. I’ve been keeping them for mocking purposes, because most of them are pretty ridiculous. Here is some of what I’ve learned:

→Supervisor London Breed and state Sen. Scott Wiener are starring in a new romantic comedy. Or perhaps it’s a buddy cop film. Or maybe they’re just running for eighth-grade student council.

Whenever I see the mailer with them standing back to back with their arms crossed, looking at the camera with big smiles and glints in their eyes, I can’t help but laugh. The cheesy pose is on the front of a mailer from Breed’s campaign for mayor, and its point is to appeal to LGBT voters.

Breed and Wiener are standing in front of the Castro Theatre, there’s a big rainbow flag inside, there’s a list of endorsers who are gay or lesbian, and there’s even a mention that Breed’s contingent in the 2016 Pride Parade won best float. For real.

No mention of the fact that Wiener also endorsed former state Sen. Mark Leno, who would actually become the city’s first openly gay mayor. Details, details.

→There has never been a mayor of San Francisco who hasn’t been a white man. This is patently false, of course, but it’s the implication of the cover of a clever ad from It’s Our Time, an independent expenditure committee backing Breed.

The front of the ad shows a little girl looking at a wall of portraits of mayors of San Francisco. On the ground is a portrait of Breed that’s fallen, and its glass has shattered. In its place sits a slightly askew portrait of Mayor Mark Farrell.

Lettering reading, “Why did the political establishment oust San Francisco’s first African American woman mayor?” covers the faces of several mayoral portraits. They include Dianne Feinstein, Willie Brown and Ed Lee — in other words, all the non-male or non-white leaders of our city.

The portraits you can see best are all white men who seemed to have a fondness for suits, ties and scowls. (Several of them also had a fondness for mutton chops.)

The ad is about the still-controversial Jan. 23 vote by the supervisors to install Farrell as interim mayor until the June 5 election, removing Breed from her position as acting mayor, which she’d held since the Dec. 12 death of Lee.

Nicole Derse, the political consultant who’s running the independent expenditure committee, said she’s heard great feedback about the ad.

“People are feeling like it captured both the possibility of the moment and also the shadiness of what went down,” Derse said.

I asked whether covering the portraits of Feinstein, Brown and Lee was intentional.

“Well, most of the mayors of San Francisco have been white men,” she said.

True enough. Forty-one out of 44, in fact.

→President Trump opposes Proposition A, a bond measure to fund clean energy projects, and Proposition C to fund child care.

You didn’t know the president had weighed in on our local ballot measures? That when he thinks of San Francisco, what he gets most worked up about is how we fund child care? Shockingly, that’s not the case. But his angry face has been used on campaign mailers nonetheless. Because if you can convince San Franciscans that Trump opposes something, they’ll be for it.

The connection to Prop. C is rather tenuous, but it’s something about how people who are benefiting from Trump’s tax breaks oppose the measure. In reality, many of them instead support Prop. D, to build more housing, and because of the way Prop. D is written, both cannot win.

The Yes on A mailer has a somewhat clearer message about Trump rolling back environmental regulations. It even manages to make Trump’s face a shade of green. Hey, at least it’s better than his standard orange.

→Forget homelessness, affordable housing, dirty streets or open-air injection drug use. The biggest issue in San Francisco — by far, according to mailer count — is flavored tobacco.

Probably 1 out of every 3 mailers I’ve received has been about Prop. E, which would ban flavored tobacco. After all, both sides have a ton of money and have to spend it on something.

The opposition is funded solely by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which has given more than $10 million to the cause. Their arguments make me wonder whether they’ve been smoking something.

They argue that it’s Prohibition all over again, that Daly City will become the new hotbed for menthol cigarette sales, and that Prop. E bans some tobacco products “but not others.” So they’d support it if it banned all tobacco products? Somehow, I doubt that.

The Yes on E side has $1.8 million from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Its ads argue that candy-flavored tobacco products look like regular candy, which is dangerous for kids.

I can think of much better ways to spend $13.6 million in San Francisco. And I can think of dozens of issues I care more about. But I’ll vote for Prop. E because there’s something gratifying about R.J. Reynolds Tobacco seeing more than $10 million go up in smoke.

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Heather Knight appears Sundays and Tuesdays. Email: hknight@sfchronicle.com, Twitter: @hknightsf