If a post gets downvoted, it could be a geinuenly awful post. But another post that gets downvoted, but is actually empiracially scientifically true, then it is treated equivolent as the other even though they are the same.
I don’t think this is the answer but one idea is to add points to people, or products, who are verified to be awesome. So that would be a scientist or compassionate politician gets more votes or a healthy product gets a subsidy.
well then the whole model is wrong. Logically if your axioms are false then the whole argument is invalid.
Most of the time these models apply to the real world. Yes, in the cases where people act irrationally they don’t work. But a lot of economic phenomena can be explained through these simplified models.
“in the cases” makes it sound like irrationality is rare. It’s not rare. It’s always. Maybe the models have some sort of predictive power, but the explanation for why they work is faulty