2012 Politics and Game Theory
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/todd-akin-and-senate-poker.html
This November, many millions of American voters will take part in the 2012 Presidential election between two very different candidates, Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama. The outcome of this election will have significant repercussions in many areas, including health care, social security and Medicare, foreign policy, and immigration. But as the President’s lead in national polling slightly widens, Republicans are focused even more on keeping their majority in the House and taking back majority in the Senate. Every Senate election is important to the GOP, including the election in Missouri between incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill and Republican candidate Todd Akin.
This Senate race began with unique political tactics, as McCaskill began the Missouri Senate election by running television ads helping Todd Akin win the Republican Primary, knowing that he would be the easiest opponent to beat in the general election. Instead of immediately attacking all possible Republican opponents, she felt her best strategy was the best strategy of Todd Akin, for Akin to win the primary. No matter who Missouri elected during the primary, it was in her best interest to support Akin because if did win, she would have the easiest candidate to beat and if he didn’t win, she had hurt the chances of the other candidate by weakening his or her campaign. Her ads argued in his defense, saying he was the best choice for conservatives, but she was actually thinking he was the most beatable choice. She made the strategic decision to support a possible GOP candidate, knowing her payoff would be maximized if he won the primary but in any case, her best interest was to support Akin’s campaign.
After the election, McCaskill was able to capitalize on her ad investments as Akin played into his role as planned. Todd Akin made an extremely offensive and absurd remark regarding rape and abortion access. Akin stated that when women were “legitimately raped”, their bodies had internal physiological mechanisms to prevent pregnancy. This statement lacked both a shred of scientific credibility, and was disastrous politically, so bad it could have even been called the end of his campaign. While McCaskill sat back and watched the media storm come down on Akin, the GOP had to act quickly. The women’s vote in the United States was already heavily favored for the Democrats, but this statement was damaging to the entire GOP political platform of pro-life policy, and brought up questions Republican candidates, including Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, did not want to address. In order to protect the rest of the election, the GOP essentially disavowed Akin and his outlandish statement. This action was the start of a modified prisoner’s dilemma game, known sometimes as the chicken game. In this modified prisoner’s dilemma, both players are driving in a car directly into each other. Player one can swerve out of the way and lose, while Player 2 wins, or vice versa. In the most unfortunate outcome, both players call the other’s bluff, and neither swerves, resulting in a head-on collision where both lose and die.
Akin was forced to decide whether to remain in the election or drop out to be replaced, and the Republican party had to decide whether to remain quiet about his campaign, or call for his resignation and replacement. This game can be modeled in one possible form below.
In this game, both the GOP and Akin would benefit by cooperating with each other, by having Akin drop out of the race with the possibility of another position or benefit provided by the GOP. But in the chicken game, both parties push the others to the very edge, hoping the other will break before they do. The GOP is in an even more strained position because if Akin does not drop out before the deadline, they will need to support his campaign to give any hope of winning a narrow majority in the Senate. If they distance themself enough that he cooperates and leaves, they receive an especially high payout because he is replaced and they appear strongly opposed to his position regarding rape. If they remain silent and plan to provide him with a benefit of a job position or other benefit given he drops out, they greatly risk hurting their party as a whole if Akin still decides to remains in the race, because Akin knows his crucial Senate seat in a close election means the GOP will ultimately have to back him. If they both work in opposition with Akin remaining in the race and the GOP strongly opposing his campaign, they both lose because the GOP hurts their opportunity of winning that Senate seat and Akin suffers an even more damaged campaign, with slimmer chances of winning. Akin knows that because this Missouri race is so important to winning a Senate majority, which would help advance Republican bills in Congress, that the GOP will likely have to backtrack their position and ultimately support his campaign, so it does not pay to drop out unless an opportunity of equal of greater value is available. The resulting game finds Nash equilibrium where both the GOP and Akin defect from each other, and both lose. If this stalemate will remain until the deadline for Akin to dropout, or if they will find some cooperation where he is replaced and they provide him another position is unknown. It all depends on how each party will take game theory into account, how well they understand their current and future payoffs, and how intelligent they are at playing the game that is politics.
-kaskadewell