I’ve had so many intensely interesting conversations this week, and not just about politics.
Although in so many ways, they all return to politics. It is that season.
I revisited some math I learned long ago and was reminded of the Parento Optimality where no allocation is available that makes one individual better off without making another worse off. While Vilfredo Parento who described this in great detail was likely a very good civil engineer, I found his foray into economics lacking.
You probably know this as a “Zero Sum Game” – the sum of each outcome is always the same.
Game Theory is widely studied and is quite often applied to politics. It does not have to be complex. In many ways it’s fairly simple.
That does not mean it’s predictable.
In a given election, there are going to be a specific number of ballots cast.
In 2024, a Presidential election year, we can be fairly certain there will be a significant number of ballots cast. While who’s at the top of the ticket is important, this also trickles down to local elections which I contend can be much more important than the big national races.
To make the numbers simple, let’s say there is a local race. For this example, we have four possible positions: Far Left, Left, Right and Far right.
There will be 100 ballots cast in this example.
In the weeks preceding the close of filing, there are three who filed early. One far left, one well regarded left, and one well regarded right. There are a lot of factors in play, but of those 100 votes, most think it’s a 50 right/40 left/10 far left race.
Then, right before the filing deadline, three new candidates “throw their hat in the ring” (an expression that originated in competitive boxing and is perfectly appropriate in politics). The zero sum is there will still be the 100 ballots cast. The question becomes who are the new candidates going to take votes from?
The chances they will attract additional voters is zero to none, so every vote they get is going to come from someone else. If the concentration is on the right, even a highly unpopular left candidate can win. If it’s a little of both, we have seen situations where the most unlikely candidate could prevail, resulting in a situation where the electorate is not well served.
While these local elections are allegedly “non-partisan,” we all know who’s world view lines up with ours, and who’s does not.
It gets a lot murkier when there are similar candidates who will have to cannibalize votes from one of the alleged front runners. When it comes to an election, those of us pulling the lever are best served with a fairly limited number of candidates whom have clearly defined positions on issues that are important to the community.
More is not better. Game theory shows us the probability of an undesirable outcome increases as there are more candidates.
We know these people. They have sought the advice of many of us and were likely told they had a snowball’s chance in Hades of winning, or that their candidacy could result in the least desirable candidate prevailing.
But here they are, on the ballot. And they are not going go away quietly. They are going to siphon critical debate time from those who can win. In effect, making difficult decisions impossible.
No, it’s not fair, but that is what we have going into the election season. It’s going to be a messy show. Political pugilists at their very worst.
I’m not going to enjoy watching this train wreck. I am going to bring popcorn.
