{Another HUGE assumption: "Also, note that there are no subintervals in [0,T] at which both the parties and the king has flat cumulative distribution functions, nor can they put a positive weight at any point, creating some jump in their cdf." } Fortunately, this is not a mere assumption. This is a proven result, and often taken as a granted while doing these analysis. Please take a look at the above mentioned paper for some more intuition on this or I will write a brief proof for this should the need arises. {The model's conclusion is PRIMARILY the same as mine: "Parties must be credibly theatening to the King".} I only partially agree with this: the result here clearly calls for parties to NOT take part in the election, while Mr Tiwari’s one of the recommendations was to take part in the election. Other than that, I admit the weaknesses of the model. Like all social science models, it doesn’t capture every chaos, every unpredictability and every mood of each player. But this is how all models work in economics; otherwise, we would have predicted stock market and other unpredictables long ago. The reality is, of course, we don’t know what is good for a person in an environment of uncertainty, the best we can do is predict based on a rigorous model and time honored logic. We take what tool we have as a student of science, and try to see how things are (or should be) behaving. That’s all we do. We are not jyotishi, nor are we the 'we-know-all' sages. I hope this clarifies my position, and helps interested people see things better in a rigorous way. It is not fair for us and our readers to reach to a conclusion just because we like those conclusions. __________________