Game Theory in this Election Season
The American election is the perfect game. There are players, strategies and payoffs. However, this game affects not only the players but the lives of 300 million people. In less than one month, these people will flock to the polls choosing a candidate to become their leader. These decisions have the potential to change millions of lives for better or for worse. The 2016 election is turning into one of the most dramatic and chaotic elections in history. Through game theory, perhaps we can make some sense of the havoc in this election season.
First, how can game theory be directly applied to a general election? In a video by DNews, University of Wisconsin math professor Jordan Elberg’s analysis on the 2004 election is explained. George Bush and John Kerry have only one more day to make a stop in either Florida or Ohio (both swing states). Which state should they go to? If Bush and Kerry both go to Ohio, Bush has a 21% chance of winning. If Bush goes to Ohio and Kerry goes to Florida, Bush has a 24% chance of winning. If Bush goes to Florida and Kerry goes to Ohio, Bush has a 16% chance of winning. And, if Bush and Kerry both go to Florida, Bush has a 21% chance of winning. Thus, Bush’s dominant strategy is to go to Ohio regardless of what Kerry does. Even though the rules of the political game are rarely as straightforward, this example provides good insight into an application of game theory in elections since candidates often do not know about their opponent’s plans.
Another application of game theory in elections is the candidates’ choice to run positive or negative campaigns in the primaries. An article from the Daily Kos explains this: “If both candidates run a positive campaign, the odds are higher that the winner will take the general and that the candidates party will succeed down ballot (stronger voting block). So, on the whole, it is a 10 for both not knowing the outcome. If one candidate is negative and the other is positive, the negative candidate will win, but at the cost of a worse general/down ballot result. If both go negative, the result is worst overall.” As we can see, much of the campaigning during the Republican primaries was negative. According to the example above, when both candidates are negative the result is worse overall. And the current state of the Republican party does seem to reflect this.
Clinton has the option to run a positive campaign for the remainder of the election. However, running a solely positive campaign would not be strategic (as demonstrated by Jeb Bush in the Republican primaries when he tried to take the “high road” but was still defeated by Trump’s low level insults), especially because Trump is not likely to play nice. The upcoming debates are guaranteed to be brutal and sensational (after all Trump is a reality TV star). So let’s sit back and watch the Clinton and Trump campaign play this game. The uglier it gets, the more we can’t stop watching.
Sources:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/18/1527831/-Game-theory-Nash-equilibria-and-elections