I doubt that the line-item veto is a good example, because there are so many complications in any kind of real politics. For example, C&C might agree in advance that a certain line item will be included only if some other item is not vetoed. This improves everyone’s utility without going all the way back to the “all-or-nothing” setup, in essence prioritizing the line items.
An example where workarounds are impossible or unlikely would illustrate the standard idea of working backwards better.
How about a hostage negotiation? If the negotiator has a gun, that gives him more options, but it also means the kidnapper has to take it into account. This may lead to a breakdown in communications.
I doubt that the line-item veto is a good example, because there are so many complications in any kind of real politics. For example, C&C might agree in advance that a certain line item will be included only if some other item is not vetoed. This improves everyone’s utility without going all the way back to the “all-or-nothing” setup, in essence prioritizing the line items.
An example where workarounds are impossible or unlikely would illustrate the standard idea of working backwards better.
How about a hostage negotiation? If the negotiator has a gun, that gives him more options, but it also means the kidnapper has to take it into account. This may lead to a breakdown in communications.
I think that expecting rationality from a kidnapper is pushing it a bit.