Game Theory and Brett Kavanaugh
One of the biggest stories that has been circulating recently involves the sexual assault allegations against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. This resulted in a hearing where both sides of the story were told, by Justice Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Although this debate mainly involved words, The Weekly Standard analyzed the situation through the use of game theory to provide a unique perspective.
Although it may seem obvious that the two players in this game should be Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the players in this game are better represented by the Democratic and Republican parties. The Weekly Standard discussed three possible outcomes to the situation, involving different people that could end up filling the open seat on the Supreme Court.
This conflict was filled with a lot heated debates and has an impact on everyone in the country because it involves a judge who will be approving or declining laws. This is a national issue, which emotionally impacted people everywhere. However, game theory focuses on which possible outcome rewards the players with the highest payoff, so it is possible that people will be emotionally hurt by an outcome, even though that outcome could be best for them. Although this conflict may seem as if there is a clear winner or loser decided based off of whether or not Brett Kavanaugh becomes a justice, the game theory analysis says that it is more complex than that. A Nash equilibrium finds the best results for the players as a whole, so the result is not as simple as it may appear.