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.