To Vote or Not To Vote: A Game
The articles I read consider the upcoming political elections as a “game theory” game. Like the games discussed in lecture, the political elections have inherent strategies. Specific to the political election, the strategies include which candidate you vote for, including whether or not you actually choose to vote. But, in the same way that certain strategies within traditional “game theory” games have better payoffs than others, many people want to play the game only when their vote actually counts. Like game theory, the amount your vote actually counts, and if it actually counts, depends strictly on what other people do. When considering whether or not to waste the energy and resources to go and vote, it is crucial to consider what others are doing first.
Based on the electoral college system, it is not surprising that many people feel as if their votes “don’t count”. You can argue that living in Manhattan and casting a Republican vote is meaningless… Manhattan, like most other urban areas, always, always votes Democratic. The article contends, and with reason, that a vote is really only going to have impact on the overall results when the vote is pivotal… when there may be a tie. And, even analyzing small and local elections, it is very unlikely that a single vote is a pivotal vote. Out of 40,000 elections considered by researchers, only 7 were decided by a single vote. Considering voting in political elections as a game with strategies, the truth is as follows: most of the time, voting simply does not pay. It requires effort and time but has little expected benefit.
This logic raises further concerns… if we all consider this to be true, what if no one votes? Speaking to the basic principle of game theory, what you do and the power of your vote depends on what others do. If no one votes, the chance of your vote being a “pivotal” one, would be a valid expectation. So, what do you do? You have to choose whether or not to go vote. While this basic assumption of 0 votes is unlikely untrue as some people, regardless of their votes’ actual value, find significance in the civic duty, it is irrefutable that the power of your vote depends on what others do.
Gaming an election can come in different forms, notably through voting blocs and vote splitting. The article considers the latter to be particularly relevant when considering Trump’s role in the 2016 election. Some argue that vote splitting could be Trump’s strategy in “stealing” the election from more “qualified” politicians. According to the article, “Vote splitting is the phenomenon where people divide votes among similar candidates, giving dissimilar candidates a voting advantage.” This may just be how Trump… trumps. In the primaries, he is marginally ahead in Iowa and leading in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. His lead can be attributed to the fact that there are too many other sensible alternatives to Trump for people to decide on just one – their votes are split among the qualified. The same way Ross Perot did in 1992, running as an Independent in the actual presidential election, Perot stole 20 million votes of moderate Republicans and Independents mostly affecting George H. W. Bush’s standings. So, while voting Republican in Manhattan will likely not make a difference in the long run, especially in the smaller primary elections, the direction of your vote just might count.
In conclusion, if you are among those who do not want Donald Trump to be the GOP candidate, it is important to consider where the majority of votes are leaning in these primary elections. This is basic game theory: always know what others are doing.