Presidential Elections and Prisoner's dilemma

[ThinkCritically]

I would like to make a simplified prisoners dilemma regarding presidential elections. Suppose there are 10 voters each election. 3 voters always vote republican (because they believe the party is always right), 3 other voters always vote democrat (because they believe the party is always right), and the other 4 voters are independent and always vote for the lesser of the "two evils" (because they believe that both parties are wrong but they prefer the least worse candidate for a given election cycle.)

The 4 voters who vote for the "lesser of two evils" prop up the system. If they were to take their 4 votes and give them to a reform candidate then they wouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

The vote total would be.
4 votes 40% towards reform candidate
3 votes 30% towards democrat
3 votes 30% towards republican

But if one independent voter decides to vote for a "lesser of the two evil candidates" then the reform vote fails, because either the democrat or republican gets majority vote at that point. The 3 remaining voters realize that their votes will be waisted if just one independent votes for either of the two parties, thus all independents vote for the "less of two evils" even though all the independents would prefer a reform party.

Both Republican and Democrat Parties realize that they will never lose duopoly power because independent voters would have to unify perfectly (if one independent votes for either of the two parties the reform is broken). Thus Republican's and Democrat's are never held accountable because they will never be replaced by a third party. Additionally, since both parties are unaccountable, they can honestly accuse each other of wrong doing. Thus perpetuating the "lesser of two evil" voting system.

 

[Oddball]

You are no less a prisoner merely because you have a vote for who your warden will be.

 

[The Infidel]

You are no less a prisoner merely because you have a vote for who your warden will be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would like to make a simplified prisoners dilemma regarding presidential elections. Suppose there are 10 voters each election. 3 voters always vote republican (because they believe the party is always right), 3 other voters always vote democrat (because they believe the party is always right), and the other 4 voters are independent and always vote for the lesser of the "two evils" (because they believe that both parties are wrong but they prefer the least worse candidate for a given election cycle.)

The 4 voters who vote for the "lesser of two evils" prop up the system. If they were to take their 4 votes and give them to a reform candidate then they wouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

The vote total would be.
4 votes 40% towards reform candidate
3 votes 30% towards democrat
3 votes 30% towards republican

But if one independent voter decides to vote for a "lesser of the two evil candidates" then the reform vote fails, because either the democrat or republican gets majority vote at that point. The 3 remaining voters realize that their votes will be waisted if just one independent votes for either of the two parties, thus all independents vote for the "less of two evils" even though all the independents would prefer a reform party.

Both Republican and Democrat Parties realize that they will never lose duopoly power because independent voters would have to unify perfectly (if one independent votes for either of the two parties the reform is broken). Thus Republican's and Democrat's are never held accountable because they will never be replaced by a third party. Additionally, since both parties are unaccountable, they can honestly accuse each other of wrong doing. Thus perpetuating the "lesser of two evil" voting system.

Do you even know what the Prisoners Dilemma is about? Do you understand that, by adding 8 people, you are doing the exact opposite of simplifying it?

Here is an actual Prisoner's Dilemma problem, and it indicates perfectly why you have no idea what you are talking about.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0qjK3TWZE8]golden balls. the weirdest split or steal ever! - YouTube[/ame]

Can anyone explain why the dumbest posters always take names that indicate exactly what they are not?

 

[ThinkCritically]

sorry, i'm using game theory, not neccesarily the prisoner's dilemma version of game theory, but go ahead and ridicule if it makes you bigger in your mind.

If you deny that I am setting up a "game", then you are the one who doesn't have a clue. Of course you couldn't determine that in the first place so I'm assuming you won't get it.

For those who do understand game theory, the nash equilibrium is always to vote for the "lesser of two evils"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

sorry, i'm using game theory, not neccesarily the prisoner's dilemma version of game theory, but go ahead and ridicule if it makes you bigger in your mind.

If you deny that I am setting up a "game", then you are the one who doesn't have a clue. Of course you couldn't determine that in the first place so I'm assuming you won't get it.

For those who do understand game theory, the nash equilibrium is always to vote for the "lesser of two evils"

You specifically said Prisoner's Dilemma in the thread title, do you not remember? If you meant Nash equilibrium, why didn't you say that? How is me pointing out that you are way over your head proof that you are the better person?

By the way,m Nash equilibrium is not the lesser of two evils, it is simply that no individual, by himself, can get a better result.

Please, keep trying.

 

[ThinkCritically]

sorry, i'm using game theory, not neccesarily the prisoner's dilemma version of game theory, but go ahead and ridicule if it makes you bigger in your mind.

If you deny that I am setting up a "game", then you are the one who doesn't have a clue. Of course you couldn't determine that in the first place so I'm assuming you won't get it.

For those who do understand game theory, the nash equilibrium is always to vote for the "lesser of two evils"

You specifically said Prisoner's Dilemma in the thread title, do you not remember? If you meant Nash equilibrium, why didn't you say that? How is me pointing out that you are way over your head proof that you are the better person?

By the way,m Nash equilibrium is not the lesser of two evils, it is simply that no individual, by himself, can get a better result.

Please, keep trying.

....ok.....so, I am way over my head.....nice try.....so i'm guessing you have a degree in economics, or have taken a class in game theory....just pack your bags and go home cause i know you haven't. You are a poser. If you do know game theory then you wouldn't be so obstinate, or would at least try to understand...but alas you have chosen the road of asshole. Bravo... well played .... you have proven your pig headedness.

Let me guess you are one of those who prop up the system by voting for the "lesser of two evils" and have become defensive, because you see that you are a part of the problem.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

sorry, i'm using game theory, not neccesarily the prisoner's dilemma version of game theory, but go ahead and ridicule if it makes you bigger in your mind.

If you deny that I am setting up a "game", then you are the one who doesn't have a clue. Of course you couldn't determine that in the first place so I'm assuming you won't get it.

For those who do understand game theory, the nash equilibrium is always to vote for the "lesser of two evils"

You specifically said Prisoner's Dilemma in the thread title, do you not remember? If you meant Nash equilibrium, why didn't you say that? How is me pointing out that you are way over your head proof that you are the better person?

By the way,m Nash equilibrium is not the lesser of two evils, it is simply that no individual, by himself, can get a better result.

Please, keep trying.

....ok.....so, I am way over my head.....nice try.....so i'm guessing you have a degree in economics, or have taken a class in game theory....just pack your bags and go home cause i know you haven't. You are a poser. If you do know game theory then you wouldn't be so obstinate, or would at least try to understand...but alas you have chosen the road of asshole. Bravo... well played .... you have proven your pig headedness.

Let me guess you are one of those who prop up the system by voting for the "lesser of two evils" and have become defensive, because you see that you are a part of the problem.....

I studied game theory way back in the 1970s.

Tell me something, genius, why should I try to understand what you mean when you use terms you don't know? Prisoner's dilemma means something specific to a person who has studied game theory, just like Nash equilibrium does. The burden of communication lies with the person who is talking, not the listener.

By the way, I haven't voted for a major party candidate in my life.

 

[ThinkCritically]

You specifically said Prisoner's Dilemma in the thread title, do you not remember? If you meant Nash equilibrium, why didn't you say that? How is me pointing out that you are way over your head proof that you are the better person?

By the way,m Nash equilibrium is not the lesser of two evils, it is simply that no individual, by himself, can get a better result.

Please, keep trying.

....ok.....so, I am way over my head.....nice try.....so i'm guessing you have a degree in economics, or have taken a class in game theory....just pack your bags and go home cause i know you haven't. You are a poser. If you do know game theory then you wouldn't be so obstinate, or would at least try to understand...but alas you have chosen the road of asshole. Bravo... well played .... you have proven your pig headedness.

Let me guess you are one of those who prop up the system by voting for the "lesser of two evils" and have become defensive, because you see that you are a part of the problem.....

I studied game theory way back in the 1970s.

Tell me something, genius, why should I try to understand what you mean when you use terms you don't know? Prisoner's dilemma means something specific to a person who has studied game theory, just like Nash equilibrium does. The burden of communication lies with the person who is talking, not the listener.

By the way, I haven't voted for a major party candidate in my life.

Well i'm glad we have that sorted out.....So what do you think of my game?
And congratulations for never once voting for a major party candidate. I'm curious...who did you vote for last election?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

....ok.....so, I am way over my head.....nice try.....so i'm guessing you have a degree in economics, or have taken a class in game theory....just pack your bags and go home cause i know you haven't. You are a poser. If you do know game theory then you wouldn't be so obstinate, or would at least try to understand...but alas you have chosen the road of asshole. Bravo... well played .... you have proven your pig headedness.

Let me guess you are one of those who prop up the system by voting for the "lesser of two evils" and have become defensive, because you see that you are a part of the problem.....

I studied game theory way back in the 1970s.

Tell me something, genius, why should I try to understand what you mean when you use terms you don't know? Prisoner's dilemma means something specific to a person who has studied game theory, just like Nash equilibrium does. The burden of communication lies with the person who is talking, not the listener.

By the way, I haven't voted for a major party candidate in my life.

Well i'm glad we have that sorted out.....So what do you think of my game?
And congratulations for never once voting for a major party candidate. I'm curious...who did you vote for last election?

I voted for Powell, he lost.

You aren't actually setting up a game here, you are outlining the parameters of a problem. I enjoyed game theory, and statistics, but I really didn't excel at them. I was always better at deriving formulas to express physics than statistics, you really need to ask someone else. all I can do is point out the misuse of terms.