Like it or not, political season is upon us.
This is going to be the most expensive political
season in the history of ever -- so you KNOW
strategists on every side are going to try
and gain the upper hand...
But how?
If you’re staying on top of how the 2016
presidential election is shaping up, you will
likely hear from political strategists talking
about the best way for a candidate to win.
A lot of times they’ll throw around the
term “game theory” and how it’s the
key to success.
WHAT IS IT
Game theory is a way to look at all the possible
outcomes of a rule-based interaction, whether
that's a game of Monopoly or political battle,,and
then pick the ones that are the most advantageous.
When I was researching this principle, my
first thought was the logic of a chess match.
Knowing the rules, a good player can determine
the moves their opponent will make and then
make decisions on what to do.
Game theory does the same, but with the rules
of human interaction.
It started as a mathematical theory for economics
-- invented by John Nash of A Beautiful Mind
fame, and John Von Neumann.
But nearly every human interaction you have
can be described by game theory.
Every.
Thing.
If you're eyeballing the last slice of pizza,
you're doing game theory to figure out if
you should take it.
If you are talking to a business partner about
salary, you're using game theory.
If you're asking someone on a date: game theory!!
It's everywhere!
You can distill it into one simple idea: what's
the best way to get the ideal payoff with
minimal risk.
The most famous example used for game theory
is "the prisoner's dilemma."
Two prisoners are being interrogated in separate
rooms, and their fates are intertwined.
Sound familiar?
It's used in movies and tv all the time.
The prisoners have the option to be silent
or snitch on their fellow prisoner.
It helps to create a matrix like thisand fill
it in as we go.
If one snitches and the other is silent -- the
snitch goes free; but if they're both silent
(or both snitch), they'll see varying levels
of reduced punishments.
Put another way, think of the Cold War.
The US and Russia had two choices, arm or
disarm.
Logically, they'd want to disarm, save money
and have no war, but because that's mathematically
unlikely, the rational choice was to arm,
because they will either maintain superiority
(because the other disarms), or equality (because
they both arm)!
THE TRICKY PART FOR CANDIDATES
Game theory attempts to explain why rational
people, organizations, businesses or governments
may not cooperate, even though it may be in
their mutual best interest.
When it comes to running for president, the
rules and players are there, but how each
candidate chooses where to campaign can come
down to game theory.
For a practical example, let’s use the candidates
from U.S. presidential election in 2004.
In an article for Slate, University of Wisconsin
math professor Jordan Ellenberg did some math
for us, thank goodness: So let’s say George
Bush and John Kerry have only one more day
to make a stop… and Florida and Ohio are
key swing states…
The Bush campaign can use Game theory to figure
out which state to visit.
If Bush has a 70 percent chance of winning
Florida and only 30% chance in Ohio, where
should he go?
By visiting a state he'll get a 10% bump.
Our gut tells us, he should go to Ohio so
he can boost his numbers there, but is that
right?
Game theory has the answer.
If both Bush and Kerry go the same state,
Bush has a 21% chance of winning the overall
election.
If Bush visits Florida and Kerry Ohio, he
drops to a 16% chance of winning, but if Bush
goes to Ohio and Kerry goes to Florida, then
his chances of winning jump to 24%.
So, his "dominant strategy" is to go to Ohio
and ignore Kerry, because he'll either get
a 24 or 21 percent chance of winning.
Laying out the strategy for both players,
is called the "Nash Equilibrium."
Which says both would be satisfied with their
current strategy even knowing in advance their
opponents strategy.
This helps because candidates don't always
know what the other is going to do, and the
rules of the game are rarely so straightforward.
Now that the 2016 Presidential Election season
has begun, Republican candidates are each
trying to unseat the other to win the GOP
nomination.
Game theory doesn't provide solid answers,
but gives rational thought to what can be
emotional decision-making.
By guessing all the possible paths of current
frontrunner Donald Trump[7] the other candidates
may have gotten more benefit from letting
Trump come off as a bully, rather than fighting
him on policy or rhetoric.
By running game theory each campaign can increase
their chances of coming out on top.
It might be too early for the candidates to
have all the rules of the 2016 election set
in stone, but like in chess, each candidate
is trying to decide what the other candidates
are doing, and what moves each can make, to
give themselves the greatest advantage.
Obviously, this can get WAY complicated WAY
fast, but it's super interesting.
If you know more about game theory, teach
us your ways down in the comments.
