4 ms·
If it's not an equilibrium then it can't happen! That doesn't make the claim foolproof or anything-- maybe it's not actually an equilibrium for one reason or an
by savanaly 12y ago
If it's not an equilibrium then it can't happen! That doesn't make the claim foolproof or anything-- maybe it's not actually an equilibrium for one reason or another we didn't foresee, but the phrase "it is a bad situation, equilibrium or not" is nonsensical.
- infinity0 12y agoAssuming that the proofs make perfect assumptions that exactly match real life, sure. "the down-winders would not vote unless they thought that vote mattered." - this decision requires mental resources to make, and if the rational choice is too complex then many people wouldn't make it, breaking your assumptions. Is there any research that tries to model the economic cost of coming to a "rational" decision (as defined by the voting game)?
- glenweyl 12y agoYes, in this paper (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2571012 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2571012) I also consider the case where people make mistakes. You can study equilibrium even in models where people are not perfectly rational.