> We initially assume the payoff to the losing team is positive, b > 0, which reflects a ‘compromise worldview’: it is preferable to reach some decision than to end in deadlock. This payoff scheme captures the common practical value of broad consensus in collective decisions, even as individuals pursue partisan preferences12,13. There is ample evidence that large majorities of Americans, for example, adopt a compromise worldview in their attitudes towards political decisions14. However, others adopt a ‘zero-sum worldview’ in which they prefer deadlock to their party losing, that is, b < 0. The behaviour of people with a zero-sum worldview is simple: they act as zealots, meaning that they always vote for their preferred party regardless of the poll that they see. We begin by focusing on players with a compromise worldview, and then we study groups with a mixture of compromise and zero-sum players, including zero-sum bots.

In the context of voters in our modern politics, does the "compromise" viewpoint even exist?