Jobst, I'm not sure how to define "rational" in this context, either.
As for the prisoner's dilemma problem, I wonder if the possibility of "defection" could be eliminated by having trading parties sit down and sign binding agreements during formal trading. My Best, Forest Jobst Heitzig wrote: >Dear Forest, > >> Perhaps candidates should be required to publish their range ballots >> before the election, and their "trading" of assets should be required >> to be "rational" relative to these announced ratings? >> > >I had this idea, too. But upon closer inspection, it is not quite easy >to define what in this case "rational" means, since in this form of >trading there easily arise situations similar to the prisoner's dilemma >and situations in which "bluffing" could work... > >Yours, Jobst > >> Or perhaps, a randomly chose jury of candidate X supporters should have >> some say in the candidate X proxy decisions? >> >> Forest >> >> >> >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info >> >> >> > > > ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
