I am here trying to expose the rational reasons of my choice. My decision is to invalidate my vote in the upcoming elections.
You have a rational player (lets call him S) who is now entrusted with
setting a up game were different parties compete. S has a
vested interest in the outcome of the game. S would have to be
incredibly altruistic not to make the rules of the game favor the
outcome he desires.
You have also have another player, (lets call him M) who has been getting
small positive payoffs from S. M was foolish enough to think he could
outmaneuver S at his own game. In fact, M was directly responsible for
putting S in a position to put down the rules of the game and was
immediately given small rewards, while another player (named R) objected
In strategic interactions between S and R, S has shown
himself to be completely non-altruistic and R suffered severe negative
payoffs. In strategic interactions between M and R, M has shown himself
to be also completely non-altruistic and R suffered negative payoffs,
but not as severe as when it interacted with S.
R is now asked to
support either M or S in a game in which he was eliminated. The outcome
of that game will determine who gets to interact strategically with R in
the future. R's support for either player is costly (i.e. it is an acknowledgment of the rules of the game). R knows that S
will not be fully eliminated under any outcome. R calculates that his
expected payoff is unlikely to change under any outcome. R knows that although long ago his payoffs were strongly correlated with M, but that has ceased to be the case.
R decides not
play this game.