Skip to main content
Log in

An indifference trap of voting

  • Published:
Quality and Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper strategic situations of voting and abstentions are analysed in a three-candidate voting model where voters are indifferent to various alternatives and candidates are interested in winning the election and seeing their most preferred alternative being realized. A specific decision problem is analysed, described by an Indifference Trap Game, with respect to, e.g., the corresponding Nash equilibria, perfect equilibria, and maximin solution. A second-best outcome is contained in the choice set of all three solutions while the Nash equilibrium concept is compatible with the Pareto efficient outcomes of the game.

An alternative scenario where candidates suffer from incumbency but voters still are indifferent to some alternatives also supports the second-best outcome. Again, various solutions concepts are applied. We conclude that indifferent voters imply an eminent coordination problem for the candidates in the given voting game which, in general, ends up in inefficient outcomes. The inherent complexity of the decision situation cannot be sufficiently reduced to single out one and only one outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brennan, Geoffrey & Loren, Lomansky (1984). “Inefficient unanimity”, Journal of Applied Philosophy 1: 151–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, Andreas (1985). “Volunteer's dilemma”, Journal of Conflict Resolution 29: 605–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, Andreas (1986). “Volunteer's dilemma. A social trap without a dominant strategy and some empirical results”, in A. Diekmann & P. Mitter (eds), Paradoxical Effects of Social Behavior. Essays in Honor of Anatol Rapoport. Heidelberg and Vienna: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, Niall & Marc, Kilgour (1986). “Nonstrict 2×2 games: a comprehensive computer assisted analysis of the 726 possibilities”, Theory and Decision 20: 99–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard, Allen (1973). “Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result”, Econometrica 41: 587–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi, John C. (1955). “Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethnics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility”, Journal of Political Economy 63: 309–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi, John C. (1975). “The tracing procedure: a Bayesian approach to defining a solution for n-person non-cooperative games”, International Journal of Game Theory 4: 61–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi, John C. (1977). Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler, Manfred J. (1980), “What is paradoxical about the voting paradox?”, Quality & Quantity 14: 679–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler, Manfred J. (1982). “The relevance of the voting paradox: a restatement”, Quality & Quantity 16: 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler, Manfred J. (1968a). “Moral sentiments and self-interest reconsidered”, in A. Diekmann & P. Mitter (eds), Paradoxical Effects of Social Behavior. Essays in Honor of Anatol Rapoport. Heidelberg and Wien: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler, Manfred J. (1986b). “Trading markets and entry costs”, Memo 1983-3, Institute of Economics, University of Aarhus.

  • Kalai, Ehud & Meir, Smorodinsky (1975). “Other solutions to Nash's bargaining problem”, Econometrica 43: 513–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, David M. & Robert, Wilson (1982a). “Reputation and imperfect information”, Journal of Economic Theory 27: 253–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, David M. & Robert, Wilson (1982b). “Sequential equilibria”, Econometrica 50: 863–894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, Paul & John, Roberts (1982). “Limit pricing and entry under incomplete information: an equilibrium analysis”, Econometrica 50: 443–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Nicholas R. (1982). “Power in game forms”, in Manfred J. Holler (ed.), Power, Voting, and Voting Power. Würzburg and Vienna: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, John F. (1951). “Non-cooperative games”, Annals of Mathematics 54: 286–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, John F., Jr (1950). “The bargaining problem”, Econometrica 18: 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, Guillermo (1982). Game Theory, 2nd edn. Orlando: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, Anatol & Albert M. Chammah (1965). Prisomer's Dilemma. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, Alvin E. (1979). Axiomatic Models of Bargaining. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schotter, Andrew (1981). The Economic Theory of Social Institutions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selten, Reinhard (1975). “Re-examination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games”, International Journal of Game Theory 4: 25–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wittman, Donald (1983). “Candidate motivation: a synthesis”, American Political Science Review 77: 142–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittman, Donald (1985). “Counter-intuitive results in game theory”, European Journal of Political Economy 1: 77–89.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holler, M.J. An indifference trap of voting. Qual Quant 22, 279–292 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00183541

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00183541

Keywords

Navigation