Yes: let the order be voter 2, then voter 3, then voter 1. When voter 1 moves last, it makes win whenever that is possible; otherwise it prefers to . For the first two votes in this new order, its optimal continuation winners are
Rows now record voter 2's initial choice and columns voter 3's choice. In a three-way split, the specified tie-break produces , which explains, for example, the off-diagonal entry.
Voter 3 optimizes its ranking in each row, giving the continuation winners . Voter 2 then chooses , its favourite of the three. The winner is therefore in every subgame perfect equilibrium, again by unique outcome under strict outcome preferences. In particular, if voter 2 starts with , voter 3 must also vote : either other vote lets the last voter force .

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.