Talk:Perverse incentive

Deleted the bit about forum shopping, because that's an unintended consequence, not a perverse incentive. (Unless a forum became friendly in order to handle fewer cases, but that doesn't make any sense at all.) I also deleted some unnecessary conjecture from the abortion bit that was mostly unrelated to the main point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandOpener (talk • contribs) 10:32, 18 February 2011‎

Have the stories listed here been fact-checked? The story behind the cobra effect is probably untrue: https://nitter.net/salonium/status/1696500231645368331#m

I am not so sure that nonmonotonicity in social choice rules is really the same kind of "perverse incentive" as the term is used throughout the article. Yes, in the most literal sense, nonmonotonic voting rules may present situations where a voter is incentivized to, shall we say, pervert their true preference order. However every other example on this page, including the lead, is about situations where authority figures set up an explicit incentive structure that achieved explicitly, and in majority, the opposite outcome.

In the case of the voting rule, the incentive structure set up is "if you vote, your preferred candidates will be elected" and for the most part this is true, even in nonmonotonic rules. the failure modes are relatively rare and almost always extremely hard to predict.

I propose this section be removed (particularly as it was added without discussion). Affinepplan (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)