Have you thought about treating ‘no confidence’ as a candidate? How would it play out if there were a variant of the approach detailed under ‘Assume Confidence + STAR’ where instead of assuming confidence you have an extra n.c. ‘candidate’ who gets scored the same as the others, and if it wins then the election is rerun?
I think part of the point (for me) of the Nash bargaining analogy is that “no confidence” isn’t like other candidates… but, yeah, that being said, treating it as a candidate would produce more reasonable results here. I agree that “assume confidence + STAR” with an extra no-confidence candidate would be pretty reasonable compared to what I’ve come up with so far.
Still holding out hope for a more theoretically justified solution if the game theory can be solved for the “collective no confidence” bargaining game, though.
Have you thought about treating ‘no confidence’ as a candidate? How would it play out if there were a variant of the approach detailed under ‘Assume Confidence + STAR’ where instead of assuming confidence you have an extra n.c. ‘candidate’ who gets scored the same as the others, and if it wins then the election is rerun?
I think part of the point (for me) of the Nash bargaining analogy is that “no confidence” isn’t like other candidates… but, yeah, that being said, treating it as a candidate would produce more reasonable results here. I agree that “assume confidence + STAR” with an extra no-confidence candidate would be pretty reasonable compared to what I’ve come up with so far.
Still holding out hope for a more theoretically justified solution if the game theory can be solved for the “collective no confidence” bargaining game, though.