I urge the State Board of Elections to reject the proposed amendment allowing batch elimination of candidates in Virginia’s ranked choice voting (RCV) administrative rules.

The proposed change would create an unnecessary exception to the standard elimination process in voting rounds. It would undermine the transparency and verifiability that current regulations provide to the public. Specifically, it sets aside the clear, sequential process outlined in 1 VAC 20-100-50 B (particularly the structure requiring elimination of the active candidate with the fewest votes in each round when no majority is reached). This deviates from the statutory definition in § 24.2-673.1 of the Code of Virginia, which describes RCV tabulation as proceeding in rounds where “the last-place candidate is defeated.”

Section § 24.2-673.1 defines ranked choice voting as a method in which tabulation proceeds in rounds such that in each round a candidate or candidates are elected or the last-place candidate is defeated, with votes transferred accordingly. The administrative code should implement and clarify this statutory framework—not introduce exceptions that alter its core mechanics for the sake of expediency. Batch elimination obscures the step-by-step progression of vote transfers that allows voters, candidates, observers, and the public to independently verify results using the reported data.

While the goal of faster tabulation is understandable, especially in contests with many candidates, this convenience comes at the cost of public confidence. Sequential single-candidate elimination provides a distinct, auditable path that aligns with the law’s intent. Truncating or batching this process muddies the tabulation, reduces transparency, and risks eroding trust in election outcomes without any compelling justification that outweighs these drawbacks. Virginia should prioritize accuracy, verifiability, and fidelity to statute over procedural shortcuts.

I respectfully request that the Board maintain the current single-candidate elimination rule in 1 VAC 20-100-50 to preserve the integrity and transparency of RCV in the Commonwealth.

Thank you for considering this comment.

The proposed amendment would replace Virginia's current round-by-round elimination procedure with a mathematically derived batch elimination process. Although the amendment maintains that the same eventual outcome would result, it would do so at the expense of transparency and public verifiability.

Current regulations allow election officials, candidates, the media, and citizens to observe each successive elimination and transfer of votes. This sequential process creates a clear record of how the outcome is reached and permits independent verification of each stage of the tabulation. By contrast, batch elimination compresses multiple rounds into a single computational determination, reducing the visibility of intermediate results and increasing reliance on software and specialized mathematical analysis.

The proposed change also has the effect of portraying ranked choice voting as a simpler and less complex process than it actually is. By collapsing several rounds into one, the amendment obscures the full sequence of vote transfers that would otherwise be visible under current regulations. While this may make the process appear more straightforward, it does so by limiting public visibility into how the final result is achieved. Transparency in election administration should be advanced through openness and full disclosure, not by reducing the amount of information available for public observation.

Democratic legitimacy depends not only on mathematically correct outcomes, but also on the ability of citizens to observe, understand, and independently verify the process by which those outcomes are produced. Election procedures should favor transparency and auditability over administrative efficiency, particularly in voting systems that many voters already find difficult to understand.

Election procedures should not simplify the appearance of the counting process by reducing the visibility of that process. Rather, they should maximize transparency so that the public can see and verify every stage by which election outcomes are determined.

Accordingly, the existing sequential elimination procedure should be retained. The benefits of transparency, public understanding, and independent verifiability outweigh any efficiencies that may be gained through batch elimination.

I urge the State Board of Elections to reject the proposed amendment allowing batch elimination of candidates in Virginia’s ranked choice voting (RCV) administrative rules.

The proposed change would create an unnecessary exception to the standard elimination process in voting rounds. It would undermine the transparency and verifiability that current regulations provide to the public. Specifically, it sets aside the clear, sequential process outlined in 1 VAC 20-100-50 B (particularly the structure requiring elimination of the active candidate with the fewest votes in each round when no majority is reached). This deviates from the statutory definition in § 24.2-673.1 of the Code of Virginia, which describes RCV tabulation as proceeding in rounds where “the last-place candidate is defeated.”

Section § 24.2-673.1 defines ranked choice voting as a method in which tabulation proceeds in rounds such that in each round a candidate or candidates are elected or the last-place candidate is defeated, with votes transferred accordingly. The administrative code should implement and clarify this statutory framework—not introduce exceptions that alter its core mechanics for the sake of expediency. Batch elimination obscures the step-by-step progression of vote transfers that allows voters, candidates, observers, and the public to independently verify results using the reported data.

While the goal of faster tabulation is understandable, especially in contests with many candidates, this convenience comes at the cost of public confidence. Sequential single-candidate elimination provides a distinct, auditable path that aligns with the law’s intent. Truncating or batching this process muddies the tabulation, reduces transparency, and risks eroding trust in election outcomes without any compelling justification that outweighs these drawbacks. Virginia should prioritize accuracy, verifiability, and fidelity to statute over procedural shortcuts.

I respectfully request that the Board maintain the current single-candidate elimination rule in 1 VAC 20-100-50 to preserve the integrity and transparency of RCV in the Commonwealth.

Thank you for considering this comment.

The suggested amendment would replace Virginia's current round-by-round elimination procedure with a mathematically derived batch elimination process. Although the amendment maintains that the same eventual outcome would result, it would do so at the expense of transparency, public verifiability, and ultimately the public's confidence in the election outcome.

Current regulations allow the public to observe the details by which candidates are eliminated due to each successive round specified in the current Ranked Choice Voting process. Alternatively, the proposed amendment uses an algorithm that undermines the transparency that is necessary to enhance confidence in the result, particularly among those candidates (and their supporters) who are automatically eliminated by this process. The Commonwealth of Virginia should be taking steps to ensure that our election processes are MORE transparent, not less. This is crucial in today's environment especially, where many credible concerns have been expressed about the security of our elections overall. 

Therefore, I urge you to please retain the existing sequential elimination procedure. 

Stop the chaos and unnecessary  spending; opposed!

Election Transparency improves voter confidence in election results

The suggested amendment would replace Virginia's current round-by-round elimination procedure with a mathematically derived batch elimination process. Although the amendment maintains that the same eventual outcome would result, it would do so at the expense of transparency, public verifiability, and ultimately the public's confidence in the election outcome.

Current regulations allow the public to observe the details by which candidates are eliminated due to each successive round specified in the current Ranked Choice Voting process.

The proposed amendment uses an algorithm that undermines the transparency that is necessary to enhance confidence in the result, particularly among those candidates (and their supporters) who are automatically eliminated by this process.

The Commonwealth of Virginia should be taking steps to ensure that our election processes are MORE transparent, not less.

I urge the Virginia State Board of Elections to reject the proposed amendment to 1 VAC 20-100-50 that would replace the current sequential, round-by-round elimination process with a mathematically derived batch elimination method.

Virginia law (§ 24.2-673.1) defines RCV tabulation as proceeding in rounds, in which the last-place candidate is defeated and votes are transferred until a majority is reached. The existing administrative rule faithfully implements this by eliminating the active candidate with the fewest votes in each round when no majority exists. This creates a clear, observable sequence of eliminations and vote transfers that election officials, candidates, observers, media, and citizens can follow step by step.

Batch elimination compresses multiple rounds into a single computational step. While proponents claim it produces the same final outcome, it does so at a significant cost to transparency, public verifiability, and democratic legitimacy. Key drawbacks include:

• Loss of visibility into intermediate steps: The public loses the ability to see exactly how votes transfer after each elimination, making the process opaque and heavily reliant on software and specialized mathematical analysis that most citizens cannot independently audit.
• Reduced auditability: Sequential elimination generates a transparent record at every stage, supporting hand audits, recounts, or challenges using publicly reported data. Batch processing obscures this path, increasing dependence on trusting the “black box” computation.
• Misleading simplification: By hiding the full sequence of transfers, the change portrays RCV as simpler than it actually is. This undermines public understanding rather than educating voters about how the system works.
• Erosion of trust: Democratic legitimacy requires not only mathematically correct results but also that citizens can observe, understand, and verify how those results are reached—especially for a voting method many already find complex. Prioritizing administrative speed over openness risks eroding confidence in election outcomes.

Election procedures should prioritize transparency and strict fidelity to the statute rather than carve out exceptions for administrative convenience. The modest efficiencies offered by batch elimination do not justify the damage to public trust, independent verifiability, and alignment with the law’s clear intent of sequential, round-by-round tabulation.

Recommendation: Retain the current single-candidate sequential elimination rule in 1 VAC 20-100-50.  Virginia should set a high standard in election administration by emphasizing openness, auditability, and step-by-step transparency—especially when adopting a new voting system. Procedural shortcuts that reduce visibility serve neither voters nor the integrity of the process.

Preserving the sequential elimination process strengthens RCV’s legitimacy in the Commonwealth.

Opposed.  This initiative eliminated all visibility - this is unacceptable.

Opposed - No visibility

This initiative eliminates all visibility to how the numbers are rolled up. Unacceptable!

I am opposed!

Suzanne Hughes

You cannot give the public even more reason to not trust our government. Yall are gonna keep on, with these ridiculous and unnecessary “laws” and you are going to see a bunch of ticked off and rightfully disgruntled, constituents! Many of us are already displeased with many recent events and legislation. How does implementing this “law” benefit US?? Bc it sounds like another avenue to cheat and lie and manipulate Virginians and everyone else. Why is it necessary or beneficial to alter our votes?? Too many candidates on the ballot or something? Fine! Reduce that list! You do NOT alter the votes of American citizens, EVER! Absolutely SHAMEFUL that even has to be told to those that supposedly represent us.. do better, or let someone do it!

I urge the State Board of Elections to reject the proposed amendment allowing batch elimination of candidates in Virginia’s ranked choice voting (RCV) administrative rules.

The proposed change would create an unnecessary exception to the standard elimination process in voting rounds. It would undermine the transparency and verifiability that current regulations provide to the public. Specifically, it sets aside the clear, sequential process outlined in 1 VAC 20-100-50 B (particularly the structure requiring elimination of the active candidate with the fewest votes in each round when no majority is reached). This deviates from the statutory definition in § 24.2-673.1 of the Code of Virginia, which describes RCV tabulation as proceeding in rounds where “the last-place candidate is defeated.”

Section § 24.2-673.1 defines ranked choice voting as a method in which tabulation proceeds in rounds such that in each round a candidate or candidates are elected or the last-place candidate is defeated, with votes transferred accordingly. The administrative code should implement and clarify this statutory framework—not introduce exceptions that alter its core mechanics for the sake of expediency. Batch elimination obscures the step-by-step progression of vote transfers that allows voters, candidates, observers, and the public to independently verify results using the reported data.

While the goal of faster tabulation is understandable, especially in contests with many candidates, this convenience comes at the cost of public confidence. Sequential single-candidate elimination provides a distinct, auditable path that aligns with the law’s intent. Truncating or batching this process muddies the tabulation, reduces transparency, and risks eroding trust in election outcomes without any compelling justification that outweighs these drawbacks. Virginia should prioritize accuracy, verifiability, and fidelity to statute over procedural shortcuts.

I respectfully request that the Board maintain the current single-candidate elimination rule in 1 VAC 20-100-50 to preserve the integrity and transparency of RCV in the Commonwealth.

Thank you for considering this comment.

No. Wrong conceptually and in practice. Anti-democratic.

Adamantly opposed. This should be called Rigged Choice Voting. It is interesting that progressives favor ranked choice voting, yet they demand a majority of popular vote for presidential elections. 

A big NO to anything with Ranked Choice Voting!

Greg

I disagree with rank choice voting - it has place in our electoral system!

Ranked Choice Voting makes a simple process of selecting leaders into an unnecessarily complex endeavor.  It removes the transparency of voting without a clear advantage.  Keep voting as it always has been; one person, one vote.

Ranked choice voting is a step in the wrong direction.  Transparency and verification would be hindered & citizen trust in our elections would further be eroded. 

Batch elimination of candidates with zero prospect of winning the election seems entirely reasonable, IFF it streamlines the processing of votes and facilitates prompt completion of the count. The cost to the losers is exact knowledge of how they stacked up against the other losers. This cost has to be weighed against public frustration at delays in calling elections. What I don’t understand is why a decent computer couldn’t do the relevant calculations more or less instantaneously given properly formatted ballot data. The real unavoidable delay comes from mailed ballots arriving after election day. Perhaps only first-round results should be reported until the deadline for receipt of ballots is past and all votes are recorded.

I am strongly opposed to adopting Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in Virginia.

In 2021, Virginia Republicans used Ranked Choice Voting to nominate candidates for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General. I served first as a teller at a voting location and then spent the next three days in Richmond counting ballots. That experience gave me a firsthand look at one of RCV's most serious and persistent challenges: many voters simply did not understand how to complete the ballot correctly.

We encountered numerous ballots filled out incorrectly, including:

• The same candidate ranked as the voter's first choice in every ranking slot.
• Ballots with no first-choice selection but later rankings completed.
• Ballots that skipped rankings — for example, marking a first choice, leaving the second ranking blank, and then selecting a candidate for the third ranking.

These errors were not isolated incidents. They demonstrated that even highly motivated voters participating in a party nominating convention — people who had actively sought out the process — struggled to understand basic ranking mechanics. A statewide general election would involve millions of voters with far more varied levels of civic experience, making the problem significantly worse, not better.

In the weeks before the convention, there were also numerous articles and discussions about how voters could "game" the system through strategic ranking. Whether or not those strategies materially influenced the outcome, they added a layer of complexity that no legitimate election system should require voters to navigate. Elections should reward civic participation, not strategic sophistication.

Beyond my direct experience, adopting RCV statewide would introduce serious additional concerns:

• Ballot confusion at scale. What tripped up convention participants will confuse far larger numbers of general election voters, particularly those with lower literacy levels, limited English proficiency, or less familiarity with election procedures — the very voters the system is often claimed to help.
• Exhausted ballots disenfranchise voters. When all of a voter's ranked candidates are eliminated before a winner is determined, that ballot is "exhausted" and no longer counted. This means some voters effectively have no voice in the final outcome — a direct contradiction of the principle of equal suffrage.
• Results are delayed and harder to verify. RCV requires multiple rounds of tabulation. In close races, final results may not be known for days or weeks, eroding public confidence and complicating any audit or recount process.
• Costs fall on taxpayers. Implementation requires new software, significant voter education campaigns, staff retraining, and updated election infrastructure — all at public expense, with no demonstrated improvement in electoral outcomes for Virginia voters.
• Reduced transparency. Virginia's current system allows virtually anyone to observe and understand how votes are counted. RCV's multi-round tabulation process is far less intuitive, making meaningful public oversight more difficult.
• No proven benefit for Virginia. Proponents argue RCV produces more consensus-based winners, but jurisdictions that have adopted it — including Alaska and several U.S. cities — have experienced significant voter confusion, legal challenges, and calls for repeal. Alaska voters repealed RCV by referendum in 2024.

Our elections should prioritize simplicity, transparency, and equal treatment of every vote. Virginia's current system — one person, one vote, one choice per office — is straightforward to execute, easy to understand, fast to tabulate, and ensures every valid vote is counted equally in every round.

For these reasons, I urge the Board to retain Virginia's current voting method and reject the adoption of Ranked Choice Voting.

100% opposed to rank choice voting and any aspect of it, PERIOD.  

My vote is for a singular candidate and should not be allocated or eliminated based on that candidate’s performance.  

RCV is a dangerous step in the wrong direction for Virginia.

Heck NO. This process dilutes the voter’s voice and only ads confusion and doubt to a process that is already suspect in the minds of many voters.  One voter. One vote. 

No. Our elections must remain transparent to all voters.

No! To Rank Choice Voting! 

Absolutely not.  The idea itself is a solution looking for a problem.  

It’s confusing to the voter and means the best one for the job rarely wins in favor of a compromise candidate that no one truly wants.

I am opposed to ranked choice voting!    

No to ranked choice voting!

Totally  no 

NO to Ranked Choice Voting!!

NO to ranked choice voting, it has no place in our electoral process. 

As a citizen of Virginia I strongly oppose rank choice voting!  We know that elections are already rigged, and ranked choice voting would further disenfranchise the citizens of Virginia!

I DO NOT support ranked choice voting. I feel like it is detrimental to the electoral process. Virginia should oppose this completely. 

Rank choice voting is an insane method to elect anyone especially to office, when the person with lesser, or the least, number of votes in the actual first round can end up being elected is nuts. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the election process of having the person with over 50% of the votes being declared the winner and being elected.

I am vehemently opposed to Rank Choice Voting. The Voting system in place has been working for hundreds of years. This is an attempt to manipulate a simple process.

I respectfully ask the Virginia State Board of Elections not to adopt ranked choice voting.

Virginia's elections should remain simple, transparent, and easy for every voter to understand. Our current system is straightforward—the candidate with the most votes wins. Ranked choice voting adds unnecessary complexity through multiple rounds of counting and candidate elimination, making it harder for many voters to understand how the final outcome is determined.

I am also concerned about the additional costs, voter education, election worker training, and administrative burden required to implement this system. I believe our focus should be on maintaining public confidence by keeping our elections clear, efficient, and easy to verify.

Thank you for considering my comments.

No ranked choice voting. 

Please vote NO on ranked choice voting!

Vote no on ranked votung. We the people.do not want it.

I’m opposed to this idea and anything that the democrats are in favor of and would rather die and go to hell than support any bills that they dream up. COVID taught me a valuable lesson about what the government is trying to do to us. I would like to see more of 1776 on steroids myself.

I am very opposed to Rank Choice Voting. 

Rank Choice is a way to manipulate a simple process and steal elections. 

Opposed to RCV

I adamantly oppose Rancked choice voting in VA bc it silences my voice and cancels my vote 

I am opposed to rank choice voting. A lot of people will be confused by this system. Also, it will allow more people to run in an election which probably won't have a chance of winning but stop the candidate with the most votes from winning in the first round of voting.

Rank choice voting is an absurd, confusing, and undemocratic concept. Please, do not even consider it!

I am opposed to Rank Choice Voting!

I do not support ranked choice voting. I t is just one more way of destroying our Republic. 

We oppose so called "rank choice voting".  This is alien and an anathema to our republic and the people should be able to choose specific candidates.  

I am opposed to Ranked Choice Voting in Virginia, we have a well developed and reliable system in place, lets keep it that way.

Introduction

Center for Election Confidence, Inc. (“CEC”) is a non-profit organization based in Arlington, which is recognized as a key “civil society group”^[1] that promotes ethics, integrity, and professionalism in the electoral process. CEC works to ensure that all citizens can vote freely within an election system of reasonable procedures that promote election integrity, prevent vote dilution and disenfranchisement, and instill public confidence in election systems and outcomes.

CEC submits these comments concerning the State Board of Elections’ Proposed Final Regulation, 1 VAC 20-100, Ranked Choice Voting, 42 Va. Reg. of Reguls. 2031 (“Proposed Final Regulation”). CEC previously submitted comments concerning Chapter 100 during the State Board’s periodic review.[2] In those comments, CEC urged the State Board to update outdated statutory references and complete other rulemakings required by Title 24.2 of the Code of Virginia to the extent such rulemakings would be codified in Chapter 100.[3]

CEC does not support ranked choice voting (“RCV”) as a policy matter. CEC has supported research by Professor Nolan McCarty, the Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics at Princeton University, analyzing the effects of RCV on racial and ethnic minority electorates. That research found that RCV may disproportionately decrease representation and electoral influence among minority electorates because minority voters are disproportionately more likely to “exhaust” their ballots, thereby removing those ballots from decisive tabulations.[4] CEC believes the core mechanics of RCV, including transferable votes and exhausted ballots, make RCV fundamentally confusing, insufficiently transparent, harmful to voters’ confidence in elections, and wholly unfit for use in Virginia.

For that reason, these comments should not be read as support for RCV, as support for expanding RCV, or as a roadmap for making RCV sound election policy. CEC’s position is more limited. If Virginia law permits localities to use RCV, the State Board should not adopt regulations that make an already flawed system less transparent and results harder to reproduce and/or more dependent on software-driven calculations that voters cannot readily understand. To the extent the State Board is not required to adopt regulations facilitating RCV, the State Board should decline to do so. Better still, the State Board should advise the General Assembly of the underlying issues caused by RCV that served as the impetus for the workarounds and shortcuts proposed here. 

CEC’s Position on the Proposed Final Regulation

The State Board explains that the existing Chapter 100 framework requires “the elimination of one candidate in each round” of RCV tabulation and that, in races with many candidates “including independents and write-ins,” this process may extend tabulation during the canvass. The State Board therefore proposes to add an option for “batch elimination” of multiple candidates in a single-winner instant-runoff contest where it is “mathematically impossible” for candidates set for batch elimination to be elected.[5]

CEC opposes the Proposed Final Regulation as written. The fact that RCV tabulation may be lengthy or difficult to complete is not a reason to make RCV less observable or the results it offers less transparent or harder to reproduce. It is evidence of the deeper problem inherent with RCV. Batch elimination may reduce the number of visible rounds, but doing so also compresses multiple tabulation steps into a single administrative or software-driven action. Rather than improving RCV overall, this proposed solution to lengthy tabulation risks worsening the very transparency problems that make RCV objectionable in the first place.

CEC therefore urges the State Board to recall the Proposed Final Regulation and otherwise not to proceed with language introducing batch elimination. Batch elimination would trade an alleged reduction in tabulation time for the decreased transparency and increased administrability problems inherent in RCV. The introduction of batch tabulation compounds these transparency and administrability problems by making the tabulation process less observable, less intuitive, and more dependent on mathematical or software-driven determinations that are harder to reproduce and that ordinary voters are unlikely to be able to follow in real time. If sequential elimination makes RCV lengthy or difficult to administer, that problem weighs against the use of RCV, not in favor of compressing multiple elimination rounds into a less transparent process that magnifies more serious issues. The State Board should recall and not implement the Proposed Final Regulation or other proposals that incorporate batch elimination.

I. Proposed 1 VAC 20-100-10

Definition of “Batch Elimination”

The Proposed Final Regulation defines “batch elimination” as “the simultaneous defeat of multiple candidates for whom it is mathematically impossible to be elected”.[6] That definition is not merely incomplete; it authorizes a tabulation method that appears contrary to the structure required by Virginia law. [7]

Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-673.1(A) defines RCV as a method by which “tabulation proceeds in rounds such that in each round either a candidate or candidates are elected or the last-place candidate is defeated”. (emphasis added). Chapter 100 similarly defines RCV as a process in which, after first-choice tabulation, “tabulation proceeds in rounds such that in each round either a candidate is elected or the last-place candidate is defeated”.[8] (emphasis added). In both the statute and the existing regulation, the defeat mechanism is singular: one “last-place candidate” is defeated per round. The proposed final regulation’s definition of “batch elimination”, by contrast, would authorize the simultaneous defeat of multiplecandidates per round.

That change does not merely clarify the existing RCV process. It substitutes the statutory round-by-round single-candidate elimination structure with one that removes multiple candidates from tabulation in a single round. The State Board’s general authority to implement RCV does not permit it to substitute a different elimination procedure for the statutory single-candidate elimination sequence. If the General Assembly intended to authorize simultaneous elimination of multiple candidates in a single round, it could have done so expressly or written the Code to allow for such a system. It did not.

CEC recommends that the State Board remove batch elimination from the proposed final regulation.

Definition of “Mathematically Impossible to Be Elected”

The Proposed Final Regulation defines “mathematically impossible to be elected,” with respect to a given candidate in two ways: first, where the sum of votes credited to that candidate and all candidates with the same or fewer votes is less than the votes credited to the candidate with the next greatest number of votes; and second, where the candidate has a lower vote total than a candidate described in the first clause.[9] This definition may be mathematically meaningful to tabulation specialists, but it will not be readily understandable to many voters, candidates, observers, or local officials.

That matters because RCV is already less intuitive than ordinary plurality or majority elections. A rule that allows several candidates to be defeated at once based on a technical calculation will further reduce public understanding. Evincing the magnitude of the issues at play, the following items vital to any effort to implement such a definition either remain unresolved or require deeper explication:

• whether “all votes credited” refers only to votes from active ballots credited to active candidates in the current round;
• whether exhausted ballots are excluded from the calculation;
• whether ranked choice overvotes, duplicate rankings, and skipped rankings are resolved under 1 VAC 20-100-40 before the calculation is performed;
• whether the calculation occurs before or after transfers in a round in which batch elimination is considered;
• whether unresolved write-ins or grouped write-in totals may or must be included in the calculation; and
• which person, and, if applicable, which approved tabulation tool is responsible for determining that the mathematical-impossibility standard has been satisfied.

II. 1 VAC 20-100-50

Existing Sequential Instant-Runoff Structure

The existing instant-runoff provisions proceed sequentially: first, an active candidate with a majority of votes from active ballots is elected; second, if two or fewer active candidates remain, the candidate with the greatest number of votes is elected; and third, if more than two active candidates remain and no candidate has a majority, the active candidate with the fewest votes is defeated and that candidate’s votes are transferred before a new round begins.[10]

That sequential structure is important because it is one of the few features of RCV that can be explained to the public in an orderly way: count, check, eliminate, transfer, and repeat. Batch elimination disrupts that order by allowing multiple eliminations in a single round. As described above, this change trades an alleged increase in tabulation speed for greater transparency and administrability issues, a bad bargain.

Operative Batch-Elimination Provision

Proposed subdivision (B)(4) provides that, “notwithstanding subdivision (3)(b) of 1 VAC 20-100-40, more than one candidate may be defeated in a round by batch elimination, unless batch elimination would result in only one continuing candidate, in which case no batch elimination shall occur”.[11]

First, the State Board should reconsider whether batch elimination should be adopted at all. The stated problem is that ordinary RCV can take too long to tabulate. The proposed final regulation does not resolve that issue. Indeed, a voting method that requires shortcuts to remain administratively workable may be too complicated for voters and officials in the first place. 

Second, the phrase “may be defeated” is ambiguous. (emphasis added). Consider this: If batch elimination is optional, similarly situated localities could tabulate otherwise identical elections differently. If batch elimination is mandatory whenever a mathematical condition is satisfied, the State Board would need to specify when batch elimination is permitted, when it is required, and who makes that determination—key provisions on which the proposed final regulation is silent.

In a nutshell, batch elimination is a not-yet-ready-for-primetime proposal that is not fit for purpose.

Cross-Referenced 1 VAC 20-100-40 Tie-Breaking Issue

Proposed 1 VAC 20-100-50(B)(4) would operate “notwithstanding subdivision (3)(b) of 1 VAC 20-100-40”. That cross-reference is significant. Existing 1 VAC 20-100-40 (3)(b) provides that when two or more persons have an equal number of votes for a seat and the fewest number of votes in a round, tabulation cannot continue until one of the persons is defeated, and that the person continuing as the active candidate is determined by lot as prescribed by Va. Code § 24.2-674.[12]

CEC opposes the use of batch elimination to override this lot procedure primarily because the General Assembly has provided expressly otherwise. The existing regulation incorporates a public, statutorily grounded tie-breaking process. That process is observable, understandable, and capable of public verification. By contrast, batch elimination would, by administrative edict, allow a software-driven or mathematical calculation to displace the statute’s public lot procedure in the very circumstance where transparency is most important: when tied candidates are competing to remain active in the tabulation.

Notwithstanding its non-compliance with Virginia law, this change would make RCV even less transparent and less accountable. If the statutory and regulatory framework requires a lot procedure to determine which tied candidate or person continues, the State Board should not authorize that process to be bypassed by regulation. CEC therefore recommends that the State Board remove the “notwithstanding subdivision (3)(b) of 1 VAC 20-100-40” language to make clear that the ordinary lot procedure applies unless the Code of Virginia expressly provides otherwise.

IV. Write-In Candidates and Persons

The State Board’s Background section expressly identifies contests with many candidates, including “write-ins”, as a reason for adding batch elimination.[13] But the new definition and operative text refer to “candidates” and existing Chapter 100 uses both “candidate” and “person” in relevant provisions. Chapter 100 also provides that, at all RCV elections except primary elections, a voter may vote for “any person other than the listed candidates” by writing or hand printing the person’s name on the official ballot.[14]

That distinction matters because write-in votes may not be resolved in the same way as votes for listed candidates. If write-ins are grouped, unresolved, or pending adjudication, their treatment could affect the lowest vote totals, tie-breaking, transfer calculations, and any determination that a listed candidate or write-in person is mathematically impossible to elect.

This demonstrates again the reasons why RCV is not suited for use in Virginia elections.

This section of the proposed final regulation is not ready for public evaluation or implementation and should be recalled. Remaining unresolved are vital, integral, and obvious questions, such as whether write-ins would be treated as individual persons, a grouped write-in category, or candidates only after adjudication for purposes of batch elimination. Further, the proposed final regulation does not explain whether batch elimination would be implemented before or after all write-in votes have been resolved for tabulation purposes.

V. Public Reporting, Software Approval, and Reproducibility

Batch elimination would make RCV even more dependent on calculations that voters are unlikely to be able to perform on their own and on tabulation tools that may be controlled or approved outside public view. The Proposed Final Regulation states that tabulation tools, including software, used for tabulation under subsections B and C must be approved for use by the State Board.[15] That approval requirement is important, but would not be sufficient in its current form. Instead, the Proposed Final Regulation should be recalled in order to include a requirement for disclosure of the standards by which tabulation tools are approved, the person or persons responsible for testing and certifying such tools to the State Board’s standards, and the records that must be preserved after such tools are employed.

VI. Statutory Conformity and CEC’s Unresolved Periodic-Review Recommendations

CEC renews its periodic review recommendation that the State Board update outdated statutory references and complete other rulemakings required by Title 24.2 to the extent such rulemakings would be codified in Chapter 100. The State Board’s decision to amend Chapter 100 makes that recommendation more urgent, not less.

To the extent the State Board concludes that Virginia law does not require it to adopt additional rules facilitating RCV, the State Board should exercise its discretion to decline to do so. CEC also encourages the State Board to provide candid information to the General Assembly regarding the administrative complexity, voter confusion risks, and voter confidence concerns associated with RCV, including its position that technical shortcuts such as batch elimination are necessary to make RCV function at a basic level.

Conclusion

CEC does not support RCV because it risks confusing, discouraging, and disenfranchising voters. The Proposed Final Regulation does not resolve CEC’s concerns; as written, it risks making an already nontransparent voting method less transparent by compressing multiple rounds into a single batch elimination action based on ambiguous provisions and definitions; further, the Proposed Final Regulation is inconsistent with the Code of Virginia. The State Board should recall the Proposed Final Regulation.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of July 2026, 

/s/ Caleb J. Hays

Chief Policy Counsel 

Center for Election Confidence, Inc.