Principles of Microeconomics (MindTap Course List)
8th Edition
ISBN: 9781305971493
Author: N. Gregory Mankiw
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 22, Problem 7PA
Subpart (a):
To determine
Applying Borda count and Arrow’s impossibility theorem.
Subpart (b):
To determine
Applying Borda count and Arrow’s impossibility theorem.
Subpart (c):
To determine
Applying Borda count and Arrow’s impossibility theorem.
Subpart (d):
To determine
Applying Borda count and Arrow’s impossibility theorem.
Expert Solution & Answer
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Students have asked these similar questions
Mr. and Mrs. Smith vote opposite in presidential elections in a swing state. Assign 1 point for voting your preferred candidate and 0 points if you don’t vote. If you don’t want your candidate to lose, what is the Nash equilibrium in this situation?
Mr. and Mrs. Smith vote opposite in presidential elections in a swing state. Assign 1 point for voting your preferred candidate and 0 points if you don’t vote. If you don’t want your candidate to lose, what is the Nash equilibrium in this situation, please explain ?
In 1938, major powers met in Munich to discuss Germany’s demands to annex part of Czechoslovakia. Let us think of the issue as the proportion of Czechoslovak territory given to Germany. Possible outcomes can be plotted on a single dimension, where 0 implies that Germany obtains no territory and 1 implies that Germany obtains all of Czechoslovakia
Most countries at Munich (“Allies” for short) wish to give nothing to Germany: their ideal point is 0, which gives them utility of 1. Their worst possible outcome is for Germany to take all of Czechoslovakia; hence an outcome of 1 gives them utility of 0. In between these extremes, the Allies could propose a compromise, X, which gives them utility of 1 – X.
The question for the Allies is whether to propose a compromise or fight a war with Germany, which they are sure will ensue if they offer nothing. If they propose a compromise and Germany accepts, they get a payoff of 1 – X. If they fight, they win with probability p and lose with…
Chapter 22 Solutions
Principles of Microeconomics (MindTap Course List)
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Consider a society with three people (Atakan, Feyza and Nedim) who is trying to decide how much money to spend on schools. There are three options for spending on schools: H (High), M (Medium) or L (Low). These individuals rank the three options in the following way: Rank Atakan Feyza Nedim 1st Choice M L H 2nd Choice L H M 3rd Choice H M L Question -Would majority voting bring about a decision on how much to spend on schools? Explain why.arrow_forwardMarie and Mike usually vote against each other’s party in the SSC elections resulting to negating or offsetting their votes. If they vote for their party of choice, each of them gains four units of utility (and lose four units of utility from a vote against their party of choice). However, it costs each of them two units of utility for the hassle of actually voting during the SSC elections. Can you explain the scenario above?arrow_forwardEx. 4 Strength Can Be Weakness A three-person committee has to choose a winner for a prize. After some debate, there are three candidates still under consideration. Let's call these candidates a, b and c, and call those committee members 1, 2 and 3. The committee members only care about which candidate wins the prize, and their preferences as follows: member 1 prefers a to b and b to c; member 2 prefers c to a and a to b; and member 3 prefers b to c and c to a. The rules of the competition say that the committee should first apply majority vote (secret ballot, one member one vote) and the candidate with the most votes wins. If the vote is tied, that is, the majority rule select a unique winning candidate, then the winner will be the candidate for whom member 1 voted. Thus, it might seem that member 1 has an advantage. (1) Write down the strategic form of this voting game. [You may assign any number to the payoff of each voter, as long as it is consistent with her preference order.] (2)…arrow_forward
- Ex. 4 Strength Can Be Weakness A three-person committee has to choose a winner for a prize. After some debate, there are three candidates still under consideration. Let's call these candidates a, b and c, and call those committee members 1, 2 and 3. The committee members only care about which candidate wins the prize, and their preferences as follows: member 1 prefers a to b and b to c; member 2 prefers c to a and a to b; and member 3 prefers b to c and c to a. The rules of the competition say that the committee should first apply majority vote (secret ballot, one member one vote) and the candidate with the most votes wins. If the vote is tied, that is, the majority rule select a unique winning candidate, then the winner will be the candidate for whom member 1 voted. Thus, it might seem that member 1 has an advantage. (1) Write down the strategic form of this voting game. [You may assign any number to the payoff of each voter, as long as it is consistent with her preference order.] (2)…arrow_forwardTaylor, Faith, Jay, and Jessica are college roommates. They're trying to decide where the four of them should go for spring break: Orlando or Las Vegas. If they order the tickets by 11:00 PM on February 1, the cost will be just $500 per person. If they miss that deadline, the cost rises to $1,200 per person. The following table shows the benefit (in dollar terms) that each roommate would get from the two trips. Roommate Taylor Benefit from Orlando Benefit from Las Vegas Faith $1,250 $800 $550 $800 Jay Jessica $650 $600 $850 $1,050 The roommates tend to put off making decisions. So, when February 1 rolls around and they still haven't made a decision, they schedule a vote for 10:00 PM that night. In case of a tie, they will flip a coin between the two vacation destinations. The roommates will get the most total benefit if they choose to go to Given the individual benefits each roommate receives from the two trips, which trip will each roommate vote for? Fill in the table with each…arrow_forwardSuppose that friends Jennifer, Stephanie, and Megan cannot agree on how much to spend for a bouquet of flowers to send to a person who allowed them to use her beach house for the weekend. Jennifer wants to buy a moderately priced bouquet, Stephanie wants to buy an expensive bouquet, and Megan wants to buy a very expensive bouquet. Assuming no paradox of voting, majority voting will result in the decision to buy Multiple Choice an inexpensive bouquet. a very expensive bouquet. a moderately priced bouquet. an expensive bouquet. Barrow_forward
- Suppose that the St Clair river, which flows along the border between Ontario and Michigan, becomes polluted and needs to be cleaned. The American and Canadian governments need to make a decision on whether to clean the river or not. They must make this decision simultaneously. If both countries invest in cleaning the river, they each get a payoff of 871. If one country invests in cleaning the river, but the other one doesn't, the country that spends the money on the cleanup gets a payoff of 161, while the other country gets to enjoy the benefits of the clean river without having to spend any money, and therefore gets a payoff of 1159. If neither country invests in cleaning the river, they must both deal with the consequences of the pollution, and they each get a payoff of -639. Suppose that the U.S. and Canada are again making decisions simultaneously. Find the Nash Equilibrium in mixed strategies. In the mixed strategy Nash Equilibrium, what is the probability that Canada invests in…arrow_forwardThe US and Russia have signed a nuclear no-proliferation agreement to limit arms race. Each country can cooperate or defect now. If both cooperate, their payoff is 1000 each but if both defect, it drops to 600. If one cooperates and the other defects, they receive X and 1000-X respectively, where X represents the payoff of a normal country and 1000-X the payoff of the world leader. The only rational solution is cooperation if X is equal to -200 200 500 700arrow_forwardIn a congressional district somewhere in the U.S., a new representative is being elected. The voters all have one-dimensional political views that can be neatly arrayed on a left-right spectrum. We can define the ”location” of a citizen’s political views in the following way. The citizen with the most extreme left-wing views is said to be at point 0 and the citizen with the most extreme right-wing views is said to be at point 1. If a citizen has views that are to the right of the views of the fraction x of the state’s population, that citizen’s views are said to be located at point x. There are two candidates for the congressional seat and they are forced to publicly state their own political position simultaneously on the zero-one left-right scale. 1.a Suppose voters always vote for the candidate whose stated position is nearest to their own views and suppose each candidate cares only about getting as many votes as possible. In equilibrium, what will be the two candidates’ positions?…arrow_forward
- Consider the following voting game. There are three players, 1, 2 and 3. And there are three alternatives: A, B and C. Players vote simultaneously for an alternative. Abstaining is not allowed. Thus, the strategy space for each player is {A, B, C}. The alternative with the most votes wins. If no alternative receives a majority, then alternative A is selected. Denote ui(d) the utility obtained by player i if alternave d {A, B, C} is selected. The payoff functions are, u1 (A) = u2 (B) = u3 (C) = 2 u1 (B) = u2 (C) = u3 (A) = 1 u1 (C) = u2 (A) = u3 (B) = 0 a. Let us denote by (i, j, k) a profile of pure strategies where player 1’s strategy is (to vote for) i, player 2’s strategy is j and player 3’s strategy is k. Show that the pure strategy profiles (A,A,A) and (A,B,A) are both Nash equilibria. b. Is (A,A,B) a Nash equilibrium? Comment.arrow_forwardSuppose there are two groups -Wegofurst and Thenwego- who must make choices without knowing what the other has selected. Wegofurst, the player on the left, must choose A, B, or C. Thenwego, the player on the top must pick either X, Y, or Z. The outcomes described in the table below are desirable outcomes (such as profit in dollars, not years in prison): Thenwego Y 11,59 22,53 38, 24 Wegofurst B 35, 33 27 ,41 29, 37 C 28 , 36 39,23 47, 21 Assuming there is no collusion, what is the solution ? O There is NO correct solution listed. O AY OCY OcZ O BX O AX CX O AZ O BZarrow_forwardSuppose there are only five people in a society and each favors one of the five highway construction options in Table 16.2 (include no highway construction as one of the options). Explain which of these highway options will be selected using a majority paired-choice vote. Will this option be the optimal size of the project from an economic perspective?arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Principles of Economics, 7th Edition (MindTap Cou...EconomicsISBN:9781285165875Author:N. Gregory MankiwPublisher:Cengage Learning
Principles of Economics, 7th Edition (MindTap Cou...
Economics
ISBN:9781285165875
Author:N. Gregory Mankiw
Publisher:Cengage Learning