Game Theory as it Relates to Endorsements in the 2016 Presidential Election
Endorsements for President are an often overlooked intricacy of presidential elections. From beginning to end, hundreds of athletes, celebrities, and politicians will endorse a primary or general election nominee. Adding to the list of unique aspects of the 2016 election, endorsements in this year’s cycle have changed dramatically from those of 2012. Take for example, Mitt Romney, the 2012 republican nominee, who rather than endorse a candidate, instead did the exact opposite and endorsed every candidate but one by adding to the trend of #NeverTrump. In this article, the author compares Romney’s endorsement and the election in general to Hans Christian Anderson’s parable “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, where Trump is the emperor, his voters are the gullible subjects who admire the wardrobe by eating up everything trump says, and Romney being the child who is the voice of reason when he points out Trump’s naked unfitness to be President of the United States.
The author of the article invokes concepts from game theory to how endorsements have worked this cycle. Endorsements are powerful and valuable statements for presidential hopefuls. In the shrewd world of American Politics, it has become the norm for endorsers to gain something in return. The winner of the election and the people who endorse him or her gain positive payoff from the endorsement, often in the form of a cabinet position or a fundraiser. Of course, this payoff isn’t free. There is risk involved in every endorsement. For example, those who endorsed Jeb Bush early in the election cycle lost all their influence on the election when he was squashed early by Trump. Guessing correctly has great payoff whereas guessing incorrectly can be political suicide (See: Chris Christie who has lost support in New Jersey). The author of this article, Andrew McGill, bring up the game theory idea of costly signaling. Costly signaling is sacrificing one thing to appear stronger. Male peacocks with large tails must eat more to sustain their plumage, but as this is a sign of the ability to hunt well and sustain, they move up on the mating heirarchy for female peacocks. Similarly, politicians who endorse a candidate risk their political reputation for the reward of strengthening their own reputation and the value of their words. Without this risk, McGill points out that an endorsement is “cheap talk”. Political Endorsements, in short, are a gamble. Come November, we will see who’s gamble pays off the most.
Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/trump-cruz-kasich-endorsement/475230/