Comments on: Game Theory and Election 2010: Why ‘Punishing Dems’ is the Right Thing to Do Tactically AND Morally http://jsears.xidus.net/blog/?p=942 Just another WordPress site Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:05:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: John Sears http://jsears.xidus.net/blog/?p=942#comment-926 John Sears Thu, 16 Sep 2010 23:50:31 +0000 http://jsears.xidus.net/blog/?p=942#comment-926 In the prisoner's dilemma, the opposing prisoner benefits *most* from a successful betrayal, but they also benefit to a lesser degree from cooperation. I believe this is approximately the case with the Democratic Party as well. If they can successfully pull the wool over the eyes of their supporters and betray them, they get both votes and campaign contributions, cushy consulting and lobbying gigs after leaving office, etc. According to the iterated prisoner's dilemma, the best course of action with a betrayal is to defect in turn, but with a small chance of eventual forgiveness and eventual new cooperation. (Wikipedia puts that chance at 1-5%; it's very low regardless). Yes, it would be nice if we had a partner we could reliably cooperate with, but at the national level we don't, just yet. I think the best course is to punish the Dems and see if they smarten up, while working to loosen ballot access laws and give third parties more breathing room. In the prisoner’s dilemma, the opposing prisoner benefits *most* from a successful betrayal, but they also benefit to a lesser degree from cooperation. I believe this is approximately the case with the Democratic Party as well. If they can successfully pull the wool over the eyes of their supporters and betray them, they get both votes and campaign contributions, cushy consulting and lobbying gigs after leaving office, etc.

According to the iterated prisoner’s dilemma, the best course of action with a betrayal is to defect in turn, but with a small chance of eventual forgiveness and eventual new cooperation. (Wikipedia puts that chance at 1-5%; it’s very low regardless).

Yes, it would be nice if we had a partner we could reliably cooperate with, but at the national level we don’t, just yet. I think the best course is to punish the Dems and see if they smarten up, while working to loosen ballot access laws and give third parties more breathing room.

]]> By: DavidByron http://jsears.xidus.net/blog/?p=942#comment-924 DavidByron Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:07:55 +0000 http://jsears.xidus.net/blog/?p=942#comment-924 I don't know if you realise this but your analysis makes the assumption that the Democratic party's interests are precisely the opposite of their base's interests on all issues. That is to say, in the prisoner's dilemma, the other prisoner benefits from betrayal and you are assuming the Democratic party always benefits by betraying its base. May I suggest that if you have reached the point of realising that truth then you probably ought to simply ditch the party regardless of what they do in the future, and vote for a party that does share your ideals instead of trying to play endless games with a party that stands for everything you do not? To put this in game theory terms if you have a party which has a set up where betrayal benefits them then tit for tat is the answer but if you have a choice of playing with a party where they do best by doing what you want to do to begin with then a co-operation strategy does make sense. I'd've said this at FDL but they have banned me for my political views along with many others on the left. I don’t know if you realise this but your analysis makes the assumption that the Democratic party’s interests are precisely the opposite of their base’s interests on all issues. That is to say, in the prisoner’s dilemma, the other prisoner benefits from betrayal and you are assuming the Democratic party always benefits by betraying its base.

May I suggest that if you have reached the point of realising that truth then you probably ought to simply ditch the party regardless of what they do in the future, and vote for a party that does share your ideals instead of trying to play endless games with a party that stands for everything you do not?

To put this in game theory terms if you have a party which has a set up where betrayal benefits them then tit for tat is the answer but if you have a choice of playing with a party where they do best by doing what you want to do to begin with then a co-operation strategy does make sense.

I’d've said this at FDL but they have banned me for my political views along with many others on the left.

]]>