Why?
This is a typical game problem-how to push back from the final goal to the most favorable first step according to the rules.
Inference A: Assume that 1, 2 and 3 are all executed, leaving 4 and 5. Then if you get the right to propose on the 4th, you can propose 100 by yourself, but you won't give it on the 5th. Because of the restriction of the rules, even if there was an objection on the 5th, there was a vote of 1 between them, 1 against it, so it was passed! Therefore, when there are 4 and 5 left, No.4 holds 100 and No.5 does not.
Inference B: Go back to the first level, execute 1, 2, and the remaining 3, 4, 5, and 3 can tell the most beneficial plan according to the above calculation, and take care of 5-"No.3 has 99 pieces, No.4 will give them, and No.5 has 1 pieces". No.5 had to agree to a vote of 2: 1 because of inference a.
Inference C: Go back to the first level and forget it. 1 There are still 2, 3, 4, 5, and 2 left, so you can say the most favorable proposal for him. Take care of 4 according to the above calculation-"There are 99 pieces on 2, and they will be given on 3, and there are 1 pieces on 4, but not on 5". No.4 had to agree because of inference B. 3 and 5 would naturally object, but 2: 2, half passed.
Inference D: No.65438 +0 strategy-Among the five people, No.65438 +0 must get at least three votes including himself. So 1 can give consideration to 3 and 4. Give it to No.3 1, because if No.3 doesn't agree, according to inference C, No.3 gets nothing. Give it to No.4 1, because if No.4 doesn't agree, or wait for No.2' s proposal to get 1, which is the same as the current result; Or wait for proposition 3 and get nothing.
Therefore, the best suggestion of 1 is: "1 98, No.2 0, No.3 1, No.4 1, No.5 0"!