Game Theory Used in Presidential Debates
Link :
The material basically fits the presidential debate in a game theory model, analyses the current strengths and weaknesses of Hillary and Trump and gives out “attack suggestions” for each of them. The author defines three players and three major factors in the game. The three players refer to the two president candidates and voters, while the three factors refer to trust (whether voters believe in the candidate), position taken (whether the candidate will do things which benefic the majority Americans) and competence (whether the candidate is fully prepared to be a president). In the essay, the author points out that Hillary’s problems fundamentally lie in the trust and position taken parts, due to her email deleting issue; however, she wins it back at the competence factor thanks to her rich political experience. On the contrary, Trump successfully persuade voters, even including people who do not like him, to believe that he will do things he promises and he is intent to fight for a revival for the U.S. However, his competence to work as a president receives much doubt.
Putting aside political ideas, the perspective to observe the presidential campaign is quite interesting. It is very similar to the attack-defense game we have explored in our assignment 2, with the participants being Hillary and Trump and the winner gets votes. For simplicity, we can draw a diagram to represent the campaign.
| Defender | Trump | |||
| Trust | Position Taken | Competence | ||
| Attacker | Trust | 5, -2 | 5, -2 | 5, 7 |
| Hillary | Position Taken | 5, -2 | 5, -2 | 5, 7 |
| Competence | 10, -7 | 10, -7 | 10, 2 |
| Defender | Hillary | |||
| Trust | Position Taken | Competence | ||
| Attacker | Trust | 10, 2 | 10, 2 | 10, -7 |
| Trump | Position Taken | 10, 2 | 10, 2 | 10, -7 |
| Competence | 5, 7 | 5, 7 | 5, -2 |
The rules for the game is defined as follows:
- If the attacker attacks the factor that is exactly the defender’s weaknesses, then the attack is effective. The attacker gains 10 points while the defender gets 10 points off.
- If the attacker attacks the factor that is the defender’s strengths, then the attack is not very effective. The attacker gains mere 5 points while the defender loses 5 points.
- If the defender defends the factor that is exactly his/her weaknesses, then the defense is effective. Since it’s helpful to attract the swing voters, the defender gains 12 points without changes to the attacker’s points.
- If the defender defends the factor that is his/her strengths, then the defense is not very effective since most voters have already believed in him/her on the factor. In this case, the defender gains 3 points while making no changes to the attacker’s points.
By analyzing the diagram, we find there is one Nash equilibrium in the Hillary attacking Trump game, which is Hillary attacks Trump for his competence while Trump defending himself on the same factor. There are four Nash equilibriums in the Trump attacking Hillary game, which is Trump attacks Hillary for her Trust and Position Taken while Hillary defending herself on either of the two factors. The result meets with our intuition.