> > For my part, I argue that Nash can *never* be applied within the > context of voting. The reality as evidenced by the empirical data (in > vivo) invalidates the basic assumptions of Nash. Individual voters > are *not* attempting to affect the outcome of elections. As this > reality contradicts Nash, we cannot turn around and look back at it > through the lenses of Nash. > > I agree with your premises, but not your conclusions. Voters are not purposive-rational, it's true. But that doesn't invalidate the conclusions of a Nash analysis, it just makes them tentative. Voters DO think of themselves as being purposive, even when they clearly aren't. Thus, trembling-hand Nash may still be a useful source of well-defined hypotheses about voter behaviour - hypotheses which would then need to be tested empirically.
JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
