I oppose any legislation that would prohibit legal American citizens from having to vote in person. There should be one day to vote and no mail-in ballots except for military personnel overseas, travelers, and elderly. There must be legal voter identification requirements everywhere. This is Not discrimination! Masks, hijabs, and niqabs must be taken off. In the Middle East faces must be shown in banks , etc . Stop Gerrymandering that is not justice, equitable, and illegal. Dems need to stop the steal, fraud, and corruption because it is not “Democracy.”

I would like to express my full support for ranked choice voting. I feel this is the best way to have a majority of the electorate represented in a democratic manor.

I am a constituent and representative of two election reform nonprofit and nonpartisan organizations: Veterans for all Voters and UpVote Virginia. I urge you to support legislation that allows localities greater flexibility in adopting ranked choice voting (RCV) for their local elections. HB630 (Callsen) amends the existing local option to include any local governing body and codifies best practices in election implementation. It builds on the successful use of RCV in Arlington and Charlottesville to pave the way for other localities to use RCV in a way that makes sense for them. Both of the election reform organizations I represent endorse RCV as a reform that will improve accountability and competition for all constituents. Further, exit polling following RCV elections consistently shows that voters find it easy to use and want to keep it. Thank you for considering this request, and for your hard work for all Virginians. Adam King

I am writing to suggest that action on House Bill 630 should be improved by amendment. This Bill is defective in achieving its purpose, and if one is going to move in the direction suggested by the Bill, it is sensible to generalize the voting procedures that the Bill allows. I have been a Professor of Economics at Virginia Tech for more than 30 years. I have a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago, and I was an Assistant Professor of Economics at Harvard before coming to Virginia Tech. While I was at Harvard, I took a year’s leave to work as a Senior Staff Economist at the President’s Council of Economic Advisors. I spent a few years as editor of the journal Voting matters. I am the author of the book, Collective Decisions and Voting: The Potential of Public Choice, as well as a dozen or so articles on voting rules. I am the inventor of several voting rules. It is probably fair to say that I am recognized as one of the world’s leading experts on voting rules. The first paragraph includes “(iv) tabulation ends when the number of candidates elected equals the number of offices to be filled.” These words indicate that the drafters of the Bill intend for the proposed procedures to be used to elect more than one candidate as well as to elect just one candidate. There are indeed Ranked Choice Voting procedures that are reasonable to use for electing multiple candidates. But the procedures described in the Bill are not appropriate for this purpose. Effective procedures for this purpose can be found in the elections of Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Malta, Australia, and many unions and non-profit organizations in the United Kingdom. These procedures are versions of an election method known as the Single Transferable Vote (STV). Details can be found at the website of the Electoral Reform Society (https://electoral-reform.org.uk/). What all sensible versions of STV have and the bill lacks is a procedure for transferring surplus votes of an elected candidate to the next choices of those who voted for the elected candidate, as appropriate fractions of a vote. It would be quite complex to amend the Bill to include a sensible version of STV. It would be more expedient to simply limit the current Bill to elections for a single candidate. While you are improving the Bill, I strongly recommend that you broaden the way of using Ranked Choice Voting to elect a single candidate. The trouble with eliminating candidates one by one, as in the Instant Run-off Voting specified in the Bill, is that it allows for the elimination of a natural compromise candidate for a lack of first-choice votes. The best way to use the rankings of voters to select a single candidate is to make all comparisons between pairs of candidates and then identify the one candidate, when there is one (which is nearly always), who has a majority when compared head-to-head to each of the other candidates. For more information about such voting rules, see Better Choices for Democracy. If you want a quick fix, you might do something like put a period after item (i) in the first sentence and replace the rest of the first paragraph with “There are many ways to count votes based on Ranked Choice Voting. Local governing bodies are authorized to adopt the Ranked Choice Voting method of their choice.” Sincerely, Nicolaus Tideman Professor of Economics Virginia Tech ntideman@vt.edu

There are many issues with Ranked Choice Voting! Please oppose: 1) The process of tabulating a winner involves the elimination of candidates with each iteration. As a result, some voters do not participate in run-off elections that occur as the iterations proceed. The requirement for “one person, one vote” is sacrificed with RCV. The Constitution of Virginia’s framework guarantees that elections are conducted fairly and that each qualified voter’s ballot carries equal weight, aligning with the core democratic principle of equal representation. Ranked choice voting (RCV) appears to violate that guarantee. 2) When more than two candidates are on the ballot, if nobody receives over 50% of the vote after the initial count, the trailing candidate is eliminated, their votes are reassigned to the second choice but only if the voter indicated a second choice. Multiple iterations can ensue. If, during this process a voter’s second choice is already eliminated by a previous iteration, their ballot will not be counted and the voter is denied the ability to select between the remaining candidates during these run-off elections internal to the software. 3) RCV is more complicated than traditional voting and is likely to confuse voters. Participation, particularly among voters unfamiliar with the system, is likely to be discouraged. 4) Proponents maintain that RCV will result in wider public support for the winner. There is no evidence to support this position. 5) Since tallying ranked ballots can take multiple rounds of tabulation, final results may be delayed by days or weeks after election day. 6) During an election when a recount pursuant to Article 1 (§ 24.2-800 et seq.) of Chapter 8, is required, there is no practical way that a candidate can be assured that the internal software results can be bridged to the ballots cast. Although § 24.2-673.1, section H provides that the State Board shall create and modify procedures to the extent necessary to accommodate recounts, it remains doubtful that any such procedure can be effectively devised such that confidence in the outcome can be assured. 7) For maximum participation throughout the iterative process of developing a winner in an RCV environment, voters are required to vote for candidates that they do not want to win. 8) Since RCV will be permitted for some categories of offices but not for others during a given election day, races where only one choice is permitted will likely have an unacceptable number of ballots excluded due to “over votes” from confused voters. 9) The fiscal impact statement from the Department of Planning and Budget suggests no cost impact. However, based on testimony to the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors from the local registrar’s office on February 19, 2025, substantial and costly training will be required. Additional cost impacts due to lengthy ballots extending to multiple pages are also anticipated. RCV also adds complexity to the ballot tabulation and scanning process. § 24.2-673.1, section B paragraph 2 anticipates that additional costs will be incurred at the local level. However, these costs have not been quantified. 10) § 24.2-673.1, section G provides that an election conducted by RCV shall not be included in any random drawing for a risk limiting audit which would otherwise be required pursuant to subsection C of § 24.2-671.2, thus decreasing the confidence in the accuracy of elections.

Please support the expansion of ranked choice voting in Virginia. It is a far superior method of voting than either first to the post plurality or separate runoff elections. We should use it on all elections from local through federal elections, but this limited expansion with local choice will allow more Virginians to gain first hand experience.

As a resident of Virginia for 27 years, I sincerely hope you will vote in favor of Ranked Choice Voting. The current voting system rewards extremists, punishes moderates, and encourages polarization by offering only an either/or option for representation. Ranked Choice allows for much greater nuance, which ends up better reflecting the views of Virginians and, in turn, their requirements for their representatives. Other states and localities in the US have used RCV with great success. If our country is to fulfill its promise as envisioned by its founders, we must make sure our voting methodologies are sound and considered, not relics of how things have always been. Allowing for the *option* of RCV meets that goal. Thanks for your consideration and your vote to advance RCV.

I support HB 630 Ranked Choice Voting. Last Nov. we had an election for a seat on The Nelson County Board of Supervisors. In our district 2 candidates split the vote . The third candidate, who I was least in favor of, won the election. I think our county would have been better served by ranked choice voting. My brother lives in Maine and says that ranked choice voting works well there. I respectfully urge you to support HB 630. Thank you.

I’m writing as a Virginia resident to express strong support for HB630, which would make Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) a permanent option for local governing bodies. HB630 does not mandate any new voting system statewide. It simply gives localities the flexibility to choose the election method that best serves their communities. This local-control approach allows cities and counties to adopt RCV only if it fits their needs, resources, and voter preferences. We have talked about the benefits extensively on the Richmond Participatory Budgeting Steering Commission/People's Budget, where I'm privileged to serve the 1st District of Richmond as Commissioner. Ranked Choice Voting offers several practical benefits for local elections: It ensures winners have broader support from voters, strengthening legitimacy and public confidence. It eliminates the need for costly, low-turnout runoffs. It encourages more positive, issue-focused campaigns by rewarding candidates who appeal to a wider range of voters. It gives voters more meaningful choice without the “spoiler” effect. Virginia has already successfully piloted RCV in certain local elections. Making this option permanent allows local governments to plan long-term, invest appropriately in voter education, and implement the system thoughtfully rather than relying on temporary authorization. At a time when trust in elections is critically important, HB630 provides a careful, measured way to strengthen democratic participation while respecting local decision-making. I respectfully urge the House Privileges and Elections Committee to report HB630 and allow the full House of Delegates to consider it. Thank you for your service to the Commonwealth.

I urge you to support HB630 which creates an option, not a mandate, for local elections. In 2024, the city ballot offered me a choice of five candidates for mayor. I would have been happy with either of two of them and satisfied with a third, but I had to choose just one. In part, this was because no one knew whether the office of mayor was included in the permission for using ranked choice voting for city council. HB630 will settle that question. Ranked choice voting has the virtue of electing officeholders who are acceptable to a true majority of voters. In a five-way race under plurality voting, a "winner" might be acceptable to only a quarter of the voters. Nothing in HB630 forces any locality to use ranked choice voting. The pill simply expands available options. Please support it.

I am writing to express my support for HB630 allowing all local governments to utilize ranked choice voting and establishing a procedure for them to do so. Ranked choice voting (RCV) expands democracy by increasing the likelihood that representatives have the approval of their constituents and decreases polarization -- in fact, a study by Harvard on real world data found a 20% decrease in rhetorical extremism upon implementation of RCV, something we could all use right now! I therefore respectfully request the Committee advance this legislation.

I urge the committee to vote for HB630, and to allow localities to use ranked choice voting (RCV) for elections for all local governing bodies. Representation of viewpoints across government entities is essential to our state's future. The breadth of interests and viewpoints in Virginia is astounding, from our mountains to our lakes, our cities to our Main Street towns, and our farms to our office blocks. RCV will enable local governing bodies to better represent more of these viewpoints. For too long, our politics has been dominated by debates between "the left" and "the right," as if political views exist along a single line. The fact is, each of us "contain multitudes" - we each hold complicated perspectives that don't all exist on one point on that imaginary single line. But our voting systems have been built as if this line is real, and it has led us to greater diversion rather than coherence. RCV offers hope that we can escape this trap. Local government impacts each of us more frequently and more practically than any other kind of government. Ensuring better representation of local concerns is therefore vital to ensuring Virginia's communities thrive. RCV can help this come about. Finally, the bill does not mandate the use of RCV. It simply allows localities to choose to use it to elect people to local governing bodies. There is no reason why the people of Virginia should be prohibited by the state from choosing to use this method. Your responsibilities on this committee are to ensure free, fair, and open elections across the state. RCV helps meet these goals. Thank you for voting for HB630.

Dear Member of the General Assembly, Please amend H.B. 630 so that “ranked choice voting” is not limited to Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Ranked ballots give voters more voice, but the tabulation rule matters. Virginia can future-proof election reform by authorizing ranked ballots while allowing more than one transparent, auditable way to count them—including Consensus Choice, a head-to-head (pairwise) method (details in the attached materials). Election rules matter. Consensus Choice keeps the voter experience Virginians associate with ranked ballots—voters rank candidates—but counts those rankings through a simple set of head-to-head matchups rather than eliminating candidates in rounds like IRV. This is not academic: it affects whether voters’ expressed preferences are treated equally, whether outcomes match the electorate’s will in direct comparisons, and whether results are easy to verify. Why this change matters: Equal say for every voter. In Consensus Choice, each voter’s preference between any two candidates counts equally in that matchup (“preferential equality”). IRV can fail this because the elimination order can prevent some ranked preferences from counting in decisive comparisons, and ballots can stop affecting the outcome due to exhaustion or elimination sequence. Avoiding outcomes that contradict head-to-head majorities. IRV can elect a candidate who would lose a direct, head-to-head comparison to another candidate—despite voters providing that preference information on their ballots. A clear illustration is Alaska’s 2022 special election: ranked ballots showed voters preferred Nick Begich over Mary Peltola head-to-head (52%–48%), but IRV eliminated Begich and produced a different result. This kind of mismatch can undermine public confidence in “ranked choice” when the real problem is an IRV-only definition. More transparent, auditable results. Consensus Choice produces familiar election-night outputs—candidate-vs-candidate margins—published as a pairwise table that can be checked from precinct totals. There’s no elimination sequence to re-run and far less confusion about which ballots counted in which round. Fewer spoiler dynamics. Head-to-head counting rewards broad support and reduces pressure to vote “lesser-of-two-evils,” while still letting voters rank sincerely. Request for legislative language: Define ranked choice voting by the ranked ballot, not a single counting algorithm. Explicitly authorize Consensus Choice (head-to-head/pairwise tabulation) as an option alongside any other permitted methods. I would welcome the opportunity to meet and discuss draft language and implementation details. Respectfully, Carah Ong Whaley, PhD Executive Director, Better Choices for Democracy

Please expand ranked choice voting to primary elections. Primaries are the most likely to have multiple candidates and benefit from this process. This bill is a good step. Thank you.

I strongly encourage you to support legislation that expands local control and modernizes our election systems by giving communities greater flexibility to adopt ranked choice voting (RCV) in their local elections. HB630 (Callsen) thoughtfully amends the current local option statute to ensure that *any* local governing body—not just a narrow subset—has the authority to consider and implement ranked choice voting if it determines that RCV would better serve its voters. Importantly, the bill also codifies proven best practices for election administration, helping ensure that any adoption of RCV is clear, transparent, and well-run for voters, election officials, and candidates alike. This legislation builds directly on the demonstrated success of ranked choice voting in Arlington and Charlottesville, where RCV has been implemented responsibly and has given voters more meaningful choices while maintaining confidence in election outcomes. By learning from these real-world examples, HB630 creates a practical and cautious pathway for other localities to explore RCV in a manner that reflects their unique needs, capacities, and community preferences. At its core, HB630 respects local decision-making, supports election integrity, and encourages innovation grounded in experience rather than mandates. For these reasons, I urge you to vote in favor of HB630 and empower local governments to choose the election methods that best serve their residents.

Please accept the attached written testimony on behalf of the R Street Institute in support of HB 630.

I support HB 630 and urge the Elections Administration Committee to do the same. The bill expands the option to use ranked choice voting from only elections for county board of supervisors and city councils to any local governing body. The bill requires the State Board of Elections to provide standards and to approve vote tabulating software for use with existing voting systems in elections conducted by ranked choice voting. I believe both of these provisions and Rank Choice Voting in general encourages more citizens to run from local public office and gives voters the ability to prioritize their preferences of the candidates who are on the ballot.

I urge you to support legislation that allows localities greater flexibility in adopting ranked choice voting for their local elections, while not requiring a specific approach. HB630 (Callsen) amends the existing local option to include any local governing body and codifies best practices in election implementation. It builds on the successful use of Ranked Choice Voting in places like Arlington and Charlottesville. It will enable other localities to use RCV in a way that makes sense for them, if at all. While I understand concerns with RCV, examples in the United States and around the world have shown it can be implemented well such that voters understand it and appreciate the ability to cast their vote for multiple candidates. HB630 will give local governing bodies the chance to make this choice and be accountable to their communities. Thank you!

Chair Glass and members, Privileges and Elections - Election Administration Subcommittee I urge you to support HB630, Elections; ranked choice voting; locally elected offices, report. Ranked choice voting is a key component of building a robust, democratic election process -- and this bill will expand options for local governments to contribute positively to breaking down the ultra-partisan politics that is poisoning our country. We the people deserve to be represented through free and fair elections that encourage coalition-building and compromise. Ranked choice voting is our best chance at rebuilding civil discourse and representative governments at all levels. What better place to start than local governments? Thank you for your careful consideration of HB630. Please vote to move this forward to the full committee.

I urge you to support legislation that allows localities greater flexibility in adopting ranked choice voting for their local elections. HB630 (Callsen) amends the existing local option to include any local governing body and codifies best practices in election implementation. It builds on the successful use of RCV in Arlington and Charlottesville to pave the way for other localities to use RCV in a way that makes sense for them.

The League of Women Voters of Virginia strongly supports HB630, which would allow all jurisdictions, including towns, cities, and counties, to use ranked choice voting (RCV) in elections for local governing bodies. HB630 would remove the “sunset” deadline of 2031, thus allowing the use of RCV as a permanent option for those elections. Furthermore, this bill would direct the State Board of Elections to establish standards and procedures for tabulating software and equipment, and establish procedures for counting damaged ballots and requesting risk-limiting audits, as well as directing ELECT to produce and provide educational materials to voters. These technical recommendations are in response to the State Board of Elections 2023 report on RCV. The League believes that RCV leads to fairer elections. RCV elections often attract candidates from diverse backgrounds. RCV encourages more positive campaigning since candidates must reach out and appeal to a broad group of voters, rather than limiting their outreach to a small corps of supporters . RCV allows the voters to fully express their support for the candidates who best represent the voters’ views and beliefs, without having to worry about “wasting” their vote. Ranked Choice Voting is one way to strengthen our democracy. The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports HB630 and respectfully requests the Elections Administration Subcommittee to report it to the full House Privileges and Elections Committee.

I am a constituent and representative of two election reform nonprofit and nonpartisan organizations: Veterans for all Voters and UpVote Virginia. I urge you to support legislation that allows localities greater flexibility in adopting ranked choice voting (RCV) for their local elections. HB630 (Callsen) amends the existing local option to include any local governing body and codifies best practices in election implementation. It builds on the successful use of RCV in Arlington and Charlottesville to pave the way for other localities to use RCV in a way that makes sense for them. Both of the election reform organizations I represent endorse RCV as a reform that will improve accountability and competition for all constituents. Further, exit polling following RCV elections consistently shows that voters find it easy to use and want to keep it. Thank you for considering this request, and for your hard work for all Virginians. Adam King

Please support this legislation to expand the use of Ranked Choice Voting to any local governing body, making it more flexible and useful. The bill also removes the cutoff, making the option permanent, so that if a jurisdiction finds RCV appropriate, the option to use it won't expire.

Ranked Choice Voting has been used successfully in 5 elections in Arlington since 2023. We will be using it again in June 2026 and possibly in November 2026 as well. Ranked Choice voting is a great win for voters - we can vote for the candidates that we prefer without worrying about "wasting" our vote. Candidates must reach out to a broad spectrum of voters rather than focussing only on their core supporters. Campaigning is more positive which makes the election experience so much better for everyone! HB630 will allow us to continue using RCV permanently by eliminating the sunset deadline of 2031. This bill will also allow towns to use RCV for their town council elections. Please vote YES on HB630 and report it to the full P&E Committee and then to the full House for a vote.

I support ranked choice voting. Too often, people’s votes are made meaningless by the process of getting to a binary choice through party politics or, worse yet, spoilers. I remember a three-way race for Clerk of Court for Prince William County that divided voters in a way that led the least qualified candidate to win. Let’s make it possible to avoid that kind of outcome in the future.

I support HB630 to expand the use of Ranked Choice Voting in Virginia because it gives voters more voice while rewarding candidates who appeal to a broader range of people, not just a narrow base. Evidence from places that use RCV shows it tends to advantage more pragmatic, consensus-building candidates — helping reduce polarization and extremism in our politics. At the same time, RCV increases voter choice, discourages negative campaigning, reduces “spoiler” dynamics that can distort outcomes and has shown to increase voter turnout. Expanding RCV is a beneficial improvement for voters.

Please support legislation that allows localities greater flexibility in adopting RCV for their local elections. Thank You

I urge you to support legislation that allows localities greater flexibility in adopting ranked choice voting for their local elections. HB630 (Callsen) amends the existing local option to include any local governing body and codifies best practices in election implementation. It builds on the successful use of RCV in Arlington and Charlottesville to pave the way for other localities to use RCV in a way that makes sense for them.

Please support Rank Choice Voting (RCV) Bill (HB 630). Thank you. Why it matters for Virginia: ✅ Reduces negative campaigning ✅ Encourages more diverse and representative candidates ✅ Prevents vote splitting and spoiler effects ✅ Makes elections fairer and more reflective of voter preferences

Please support Rank Choice Voting (RCV) Bill (HB 630). Thank you. Right now, in most Virginia elections, voters choose just one candidate. In races with 3+ candidates, that can lead to winners being elected with far less than a majority of the vote — sometimes less than 30%! Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) changes that. Here’s how it works: Instead of picking just one candidate, you rank the candidates you like in order of preference — 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on. If no one gets a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Those votes go to the next choice on each ballot. This process continues until someone wins with majority support. Why it matters for Virginia: ✅ Reduces negative campaigning ✅ Encourages more diverse and representative candidates ✅ Prevents vote splitting and spoiler effects ✅ Makes elections fairer and more reflective of voter preferences

I am writing to urge you to proudly support legislation to allow localities much more flexibility in adopting ranked choice voting for their local elections. HB630 (Callsen) amends the existing local option to include any local governing body, and codifies best practices in election implementation. Arlington and Charlottesville have showed us with their successful use of ranked choice voting that we should build on those successes, and pave the way for other localities to use RCV in any ways they can determine that makes sense for them.

I support ranked choice voting in Virginia. Studies have shown that it improves voter turnout. (link to study attached). Candidates are more moderate in their views, as they have to appeal to as a second choice to voters. It removes the "spoiler" candidate, where often a third candidate draws off enough votes from the likely winner, and hands the election to the less popular second place candidate. It provides a better voice to Virginia voters. Local governments should be allowed to choose to use Ranked Choice Voting.

I ask you to support this legislation that allows localities greater flexibility in adopting ranked choice voting (RVC) for their local elections. HB630 (Callsen) amends the existing local voting options to include any local governing body and codifies best practices in election implementation. It builds on the popular and successful use of RCV in Arlington and Charlottesville to allow other localities to use RCV if so requested by their constituents.

I oppose this bill. TWO WRONGS DON’T MAKE IT RIGHT. How disrespectful Mrs. Louise Lucas cussing out others who disagree. She allowed destruction, looting, vandalism, and violence to happen. Today’s Democrats have lost their way especially during Biden’s tyrannical presidency.

I request your support for legislation that allows localities greater flexibility in adopting ranked choice voting for their local elections. HB630 (Callsen) amends the existing local option to include any local governing body and codifies best practices in election implementation. It builds on the successful use of RCV in Arlington and Charlottesville to pave the way for other localities to use RCV in a way that makes sense for them.

I urge you to support legislation that allows localities greater flexibility in adopting ranked choice voting for their local elections. HB630 (Callsen) amends the existing local option to include any local governing body and codifies best practices in election implementation. It builds on the successful use of RCV in Arlington and Charlottesville to pave the way for other localities to use RCV in a way that makes sense for them.

I am a US Army veteran and retired Federal employee with almost 30 years of service to our country. As my retirement was somewhat unexpected, I have transitioned from being politically invested at the state and national level to politically engaged in as many levels as I can touch. As an engaged voter of Fairfax County, I appreciate the opportunity to rank my preferred candidates for local races. We know raked choice voting improves turnout. It is constructive that blocs of voters with different perspectives — such as homeowners and renters — are able to secure their individual voices locally. The Board of Supervisors, for example, is more likely to hear and respond to the needs of a wider range of its constituents. Please make rank-choice-voting a permanent option for local elections in Virginia. I hope we can bring this practice—which motivates voters to get more informed about candidates and rewards candidates to find common ground with rivals—to state-wide and federal races soon, too. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion in this forum.

I urge you to support legislation that allows localities greater flexibility in adopting ranked choice voting for their local elections. HB630 (Callsen) amends the existing local option to include any local governing body and codifies best practices in election implementation. It builds on the successful use of RCV in Arlington and Charlottesville to pave the way for other localities to use RCV in a way that makes sense for them. We need RCV in all elections for local,.state,.and federal office, but this bill is a positive, incremental step in the right direction.

Please support legislation that allows localities greater flexibility in adopting ranked choice voting for their local elections. HB630 (Callsen) amends the existing local option to include any LOCAL governing body. It codifies best practices in election implementation, and builds on the successful use of this kind of voting in Arlington and Charlottesville, to pave the way for other localities to use RCV in a way that makes sense for them. Thank you.

I urge you to support legislation that allows localities greater flexibility in adopting ranked choice voting for their local elections. HB630 (Callsen) amends the existing local option to include any local governing body and codifies best practices in election implementation. It builds on the successful use of RCV in Arlington and Charlottesville to pave the way for other localities to use RCV in a way that makes sense for them.

As an engaged voter of Arlington County, I appreciate the opportunity to rank my preferred candidates for County Board. It is constructive that blocs of voters with different perspectives — such as homeowners and renters — are able to secure a voice on the County Board. The Board is more likely to hear and respond to the needs of a wider range of its constituents. Please make rank-choice-voting a permanent option for local elections in Virginia. I hope we can bring this practice—which motivates voters to get more informed about candidates and rewards candidates to find common ground with rivals—to federal races soon, too.

I am opposed to any all bill that make it easier to cheat in elections like these bills being presented. I am opposed to any and all bills that make same sex marriage acceptable. I am opposed to any and all bills that allow full term abortion and allow minors to have abortions with out the parents knowledge. I am opposed to any and all bills that would allow minors to undergo transgender surgery . I am opposed to any and all bills that will raise taxes while the politicians are trying to give themselves a 150% increase no that is not acceptable.