Paper detail

Commitment versus persuasion in the three-party constrained voter model

In the framework of the three-party constrained voter model, where voters of two radical parties (A and B) interact with "centrists" (C and Cz), we study the competition between a persuasive majority and a committed minority. In this model, A's and B's are incompatible voters that can convince centrists or be swayed by them. Here, radical voters are more persuasive than centrists, whose sub-population consists of susceptible agents C and a fraction zeta of centrist zealots Cz. Whereas C's may adopt the opinions A and B with respective rates 1+delta_A and 1+delta_B (with delta_A>=delta_B>0), Cz's are committed individuals that always remain centrists. Furthermore, A and B voters can become (susceptible) centrists C with a rate 1. The resulting competition between commitment and persuasion is studied in the mean field limit and for a finite population on a complete graph. At mean field level, there is a continuous transition from a coexistence phase when zeta<Delta_c=delta_A/(1+delta_A) to a phase where centrism prevails when zeta>= Delta_c. In a finite population of size N, demographic fluctuations lead to centrism consensus and the dynamics is characterized by the mean consensus time tau. Because of the competition between commitment and persuasion, here consensus is reached much slower (zeta<Delta_c) or faster (zeta>=Delta_c) than in the absence of zealots (when tau\simN). In fact, when zeta<Delta_c and there is an initial minority of centrists, the mean consensus time asymptotically grows as tau\simN^{-1/2} e^{N gamma}, where gamma is determined. The dynamics is thus characterized by a metastable state where the most persuasive voters and centrists coexist when delta_A>delta_B, whereas all species coexist when delta_A=delta_B. When zeta>=Delta_c and the initial density of centrists is low, one finds tau\simln N (when N>>1). Our analytical findings are corroborated by stochastic simulations.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author4 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.