IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/ajfdb.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A comparison of zero and minimal intelligence agendas in Markov Chain voting models

Author

Listed:
  • Brewer, Paul J
  • Moberly, Raymond

Abstract

Emergent behavior in repeated collective decisions of minimally intelligent agents -- who at each step in time invoke majority rule to choose between a status quo and a random challenge -- can manifest through the long-term stationary probability distributions of a Markov Chain. We use this known technique to compare two kinds of voting agendas: a zero-intelligence agenda that chooses the challenger uniformly at random, and a minimally-intelligent agenda that chooses the challenger from the union of the status quo and the set of winning challengers. We use Google Co-Lab's GPU accelerated computing environment, with code we have hosted on Github, to compute stationary distributions for some simple examples from spatial-voting and budget-allocation scenarios. We find that the voting model using the zero-intelligence agenda converges more slowly, but in some cases to better outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Brewer, Paul J & Moberly, Raymond, 2021. "A comparison of zero and minimal intelligence agendas in Markov Chain voting models," OSF Preprints ajfdb, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:ajfdb
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/ajfdb
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/60d2993373c72e00d3c3bba6/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/ajfdb?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elizabeth Maggie Penn, 2009. "A Model of Farsighted Voting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 36-54, January.
    2. Gode, Dhananjay K & Sunder, Shyam, 1993. "Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero-Intelligence Traders: Market as a Partial Substitute for Individual Rationality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 119-137, February.
    3. Kalandrakis, Anastassios, 2004. "A three-player dynamic majoritarian bargaining game," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 294-322, June.
    4. Paul Brewer & Maria Huang & Brad Nelson & Charles Plott, 2002. "On the Behavioral Foundations of the Law of Supply and Demand: Human Convergence and Robot Randomness," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(3), pages 179-208, December.
    5. McKelvey, Richard D., 1976. "Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 472-482, June.
    6. John Duggan & César Martinelli, 2017. "The Political Economy of Dynamic Elections: Accountability, Commitment, and Responsiveness," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(3), pages 916-984, September.
    7. Dhananjay K. Gode & Shyam Sunder, 1997. "What Makes Markets Allocationally Efficient?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 603-630.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Keith Dougherty & Julian Edward, 2012. "Voting for Pareto optimality: a multidimensional analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 655-678, June.
    2. John Duffy & M. Utku Unver, 2003. "Asset Price Bubbles and Crashes with Near-Zero-Intelligence Traders: Towards an Understanding of Laboratory Findings," Computational Economics 0307001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 17 Mar 2004.
    3. Marco LiCalzi & Lucia Milone & Paolo Pellizzari, 2011. "Allocative Efficiency and Traders’ Protection Under Zero Intelligence Behavior," Dynamic Modeling and Econometrics in Economics and Finance, in: Herbert Dawid & Willi Semmler (ed.), Computational Methods in Economic Dynamics, pages 5-28, Springer.
    4. Ross M. Miller, 2012. "The Effect Of Boundary Conditions On Efficiency And Pricing In Double‐Auction Markets With Zero‐Intelligence Agents," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 179-188, July.
    5. Duffy, John, 2006. "Agent-Based Models and Human Subject Experiments," Handbook of Computational Economics, in: Leigh Tesfatsion & Kenneth L. Judd (ed.), Handbook of Computational Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 949-1011, Elsevier.
    6. Duggan, John & Kalandrakis, Tasos, 2012. "Dynamic legislative policy making," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(5), pages 1653-1688.
    7. Yeh, Chia-Hsuan, 2008. "The effects of intelligence on price discovery and market efficiency," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 613-625, December.
    8. Diermeier, Daniel & Fong, Pohan, 2012. "Characterization of the von Neumann–Morgenstern stable set in a non-cooperative model of dynamic policy-making with a persistent agenda setter," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 349-353.
    9. John Duggan & Tasos Kalandrakis, 2011. "A Newton collocation method for solving dynamic bargaining games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 36(3), pages 611-650, April.
    10. Nunnari, Salvatore, 2021. "Dynamic legislative bargaining with veto power: Theory and experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 186-230.
    11. Seok-ju Cho, 2014. "Three-party competition in parliamentary democracy with proportional representation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 407-426, December.
    12. Giuseppe Attanasi & Samuele Centorrino & Elena Manzoni, 2020. "Zero-Intelligence vs. Human Agents: An Experimental Analysis of the Efficiency of Double Auctions and Over-the-Counter Markets of Varying Sizes," Working Papers 05/2020, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    13. Karim Jamal & Michael Maier & Shyam Sunder, 2019. "Aggregation of Diverse Information with Double Auction Trading among Minimally-Intelligent Algorithmic Agents," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2182, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    14. Itzhak Rasooly, 2022. "Competitive equilibrium and the double auction," Economics Series Working Papers 974, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    15. Li, Hongyan & Tesfatsion, Leigh, 2012. "Co-learning patterns as emergent market phenomena: An electricity market illustration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 395-419.
    16. Mark Paddrik & Roy Hayes & William Scherer & Peter Beling, 2017. "Effects of limit order book information level on market stability metrics," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 12(2), pages 221-247, July.
    17. Mikhail Anufriev & Jasmina Arifovic & John Ledyard & Valentyn Panchenko, 2013. "Efficiency of continuous double auctions under individual evolutionary learning with full or limited information," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 539-573, July.
    18. Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Koriyama, Yukio & Sutan, Angela & Willinger, Marc, 2019. "The strategic environment effect in beauty contest games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 587-610.
    19. John List, 2002. "Testing neoclassical competitive market theory in the field: Some pilot results," Framed Field Experiments 00172, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. Seok-ju Cho, 2023. "The Dynamics of Parliamentary Bargaining and the Vote of Confidence," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 39, pages 277-314.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:ajfdb. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.