Difference between revisions of "Groseclose and Snyder (1993) - Buying Supermajorities"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Has page=Groseclose and Snyder (1993) - Buying Supermajorities | |Has page=Groseclose and Snyder (1993) - Buying Supermajorities | ||
|Has title=Buying Supermajorities | |Has title=Buying Supermajorities | ||
| − | |Has author= | + | |Has author=Groseclose and Snyder |
|Has year=1993 | |Has year=1993 | ||
|In journal= | |In journal= | ||
Revision as of 13:22, 29 September 2020
| Article | |
|---|---|
| Has bibtex key | |
| Has article title | |
| Has author | Groseclose and Snyder |
| Has year | 1993 |
| In journal | |
| In volume | |
| In number | |
| Has pages | |
| Has publisher | |
| © edegan.com, 2016 | |
Model Setup
2011 2nd Year exam paper question.
- Players: Legislators, vote buyers A and B.
- Choice space: [math](x,s)\in R[/math].
- Preferences: Legislators: [math]u_{i}=u_{i}(x)-u_{i}(s)[/math]
- Game form: A first, b second. Bribe upon commitment to vote.
- Information: Complete/perfect.
- EQM: SPNE, Pure strategies, tie rule: Vote for last offer.
- Because lobbyists are worried about competitors invading coalitions, it is sometimes cheaper to bribe a large majority, possibly including the entire legislature.
Rui's points:
- Sequence matters,
- More than minimum winning coalition
- First mover advantage and 2nd mover advantage.
- "The proofs are horrendous, you don't need to know those."
