Difference between revisions of "Messner, M. and M. Polborn (2004), Voting on Majority Rules"

From edegan.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Article
 
{{Article
 
|Has page=Messner, M. and M. Polborn (2004), Voting on Majority Rules
 
|Has page=Messner, M. and M. Polborn (2004), Voting on Majority Rules
|Has title=Voting on Majority Rules
+
|Has bibtex key=
 +
|Has article title=Voting on Majority Rules
 
|Has author=Messner, M. and M. Polborn
 
|Has author=Messner, M. and M. Polborn
 
|Has year=2004
 
|Has year=2004

Latest revision as of 18:15, 29 September 2020

Article
Has bibtex key
Has article title Voting on Majority Rules
Has author Messner, M. and M. Polborn
Has year 2004
In journal
In volume
In number
Has pages
Has publisher
© edegan.com, 2016

Return to BPP Field Exam Papers 2012

Intergenerational Conflict

  • Voters born in continuous time and live for length 1
  • Deaths equal birth, so continuous mass
  • Some chance of reform opportunity
  • Reforms cost, c, yeild value v element of [0, [math]\infty[/math]]

Results

  • At any given time, median voter will be happy with simply majority
  • However, median voter is only median for a split second, so if constitutional moment arises, he will choose super-majority
  • While median voter prefer voting rule of [math]r(t_{m})=2c[/math] for a current project, he prefers [math]r(t_{m})=4c[/math] to decide on all future projects.
  • rule of [math]r(t_{m})=4c[/math] corresponds to [math]t_{s}=\frac{3}{4}\gt \frac{1}{2}[/math]
  • If we focus on welfare of all future generations obviously [math]t_{c}=\frac{1}{2}[/math]
  • If we focus on welfare of all those currently alive [math]t_{c}=\frac{2}{3}[/math]