Abstract
A large polarized electorate decides repeatedly between a reversible alternative (REMAIN) and an irreversible alternative (LEAVE) in an environment where the aggregate short-term effects of the decision vary from period to period. Decisions by simple majority or by a too low supermajority may perform poorly under circumstances where it is socially optimal to never LEAVE, as they can exhibit equilibria where LEAVE is chosen quickly. In general, a too low supermajority rule can have much higher welfare costs than a too high supermajority rule. If REMAIN also becomes permanent when it wins by a large enough margin, and if a new vote is triggered otherwise, particularly poor performances of the simple majority rule are avoided. The large asymmetry in potential welfare costs disappears, and the majority requirement becomes a relatively less important instrument.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 85-108 |
| Number of pages | 24 |
| Journal | Games and Economic Behavior |
| Volume | 130 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Nov 2021 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- Dynamic voting
- Irreversible option
- Option value
- Supermajority rules
- Voting by two-sided supermajority
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Finance
- Economics and Econometrics
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Brexit: A comparison of dynamic voting games with irreversible options'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver