![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
May the Fourth be with you!
I get the stupidest grin whenever I say that. And I've been saying it a lot today.
Also, watching a room filled with AI profs and grads discuss the Single Transferable Vote referendum here in BC was much fun. Encouragingly, they were almost unanimously in favor of it, they just had a lot of interesting implications and boundary conditions to pick apart. I don't think anyone with BC voting privileges who reads this journal isn't already a supporter, but in case I'm missing someone, please let me proselytize at you in person! It's killing me that I can't vote for it myself.
I get the stupidest grin whenever I say that. And I've been saying it a lot today.
Also, watching a room filled with AI profs and grads discuss the Single Transferable Vote referendum here in BC was much fun. Encouragingly, they were almost unanimously in favor of it, they just had a lot of interesting implications and boundary conditions to pick apart. I don't think anyone with BC voting privileges who reads this journal isn't already a supporter, but in case I'm missing someone, please let me proselytize at you in person! It's killing me that I can't vote for it myself.
no subject
If I understand correctly, if there's a Condorcet winner, then no-one regrets their ballot (and I suspect this is appropriately generalisable to the Smith set). Here's the thing: if there's a Condorcet winner for everyone's sincere votes, I cannot see why that should not be the winner. I am not bothered by failing later-no-harm and Participation provided tactical voting is impractical.