Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
✳️ dcposch on daimo
@dcposch.eth
> huge things happen > 10 point polling gap appears between men and women > 40%+ shift with arab americans etc > … > everything cancels out perfectly. election is a precise toss up, down to the same handful of people in Pennsylvania again how?
14 replies
15 recasts
299 reactions
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
Median voter theorem. If your chance of winning gets closer to 100%, it's theoretically optimal for you to start getting greedier on your policy asks; this increases your prize from winning, but your chance of winning also goes back down as a result.
1 reply
0 recast
11 reactions
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
A deeper mathematical model: Suppose that there are two parties, Red and Blue, and within red there are two factions, Scarlet and Crimson. Your own moral rankings are: Scarlet: 10 Crimson: 8 Blue: 0 If you think Red only has a ~50% chance of winning, you would see that the Red vs Blue fight is the most crucial and focus your energies there. If you see that Crimson is more popular with average voters than Scarlet, you would support (or at least not oppose) Crimson having more influence over the Red platform. But if you think Red has a 90% chance of winning, then the threat of Blue would play less into your calculations, and you would focus more on helping Scarlet beat Crimson inside Red. This of course intersects with all the common human biases like tribalism and overconfidence etc, but that seems to be the fundamental reason why elections being always very contested is an equilibrium.
1 reply
2 recasts
12 reactions
