Some questions about the revolution yesterday

Thinking about the revolution game yesterday in class, I had a few questions:

• We had a few proposals for redstribution, ranging from 70% tax rate and 99% public goods to 35% tax rate and 40% private goods with some public goods thrown in. But only about 25 people voted for the most radical proposal, even though the more radical proposal would have increased a poor person's income by more than 300% (from $.70 to $3.28). Most of those votes also came from the highlanders. Why didn't most people vote for the most radical proposal (though a plurality did)?
  
• President Erin's proposal had some public goods put in, some 35% of the budget at first if I recall correctly. Why wasn't this concession enough to mollify prevent a revolution? Could she have offered other concessions, e.g., increased the size of the selectorate though not to the point that the system became a democracy? (To be sure, people may not have been aware of this option).
• Why didn't more people become soldiers? A soldier would get a nice income boost - with 15% repression at a 30% tax rate, 11 poor soldiers would receive $3.31 each, much more than their normal $.70. (Perhaps this wasn't clear? I also should have allowed the rich to become soldiers, I think).
  
• When I first called for a show of hands on who was revolting, it seemed that at first only the highlanders were going to revolt, but then most of the lowlander poor also revolted. Why? Did seeing the highlanders revolt en masse influence your estimate of the chances of the revolution's success?
• We'll look at this question on Friday, but what do you think the selectorate and the winning coalition going to be like in a revolution led by the highlanders?
• Was it possible to arrive at a democracy in this society? Would a different mixture of concessions have led to stable democracy rather than a revolution? Which historical society does our scenario most resemble?
  

(cross-posted)