[Computational Complexity] Endorsements and Game Theory
- If you are a big shot in the political world then endorsing a political candidate has a game theory flavor to it. I'm sure someone could make a formal game theory problem out of it. There are two possibly competing options:
- Endorse someone who you think will get the nomination.
- Endorse someone who you agree with politically.
You endorse someone who you think will get the nomination
but who you disagree with.
- They win: you may get power (e.g., a cabinet post) but you may not be able to use that power to do what you want. In short, you have power but have lost your integrity (If you have been in politics long enough thats probably already gone.)
- They lose: you have lost your power and your integrity. (Pat Robertson's endorsement of Guilliani may be like that.)
You endorse someone who you agree with but probably won't
get the nomination.
- If they win then you are in great shape. You get power and integrity.
- If the lose this isn't so bad since you still have your integrity. And if they did better-than-expected (e.g, Mike Huckabee) then you may have some power.
You endorse someone who you agree with and who you think
will get the nomination.
- If you endorse after its obvious they will get the nomination then you don't get much. (Six Republican Govenors recently endorsed McCain. Too late to get any brownie points for that. Or the Vice Presidency.) If you endorse before its obvious then you could get power and keep your integrity.
- If they lose then hope that it is not thought that your endorsement caused the loss.
- You endorse someone who you disagree with and who you think won't get the nomination. You may be in the wrong business.
Posted By GASARCH to Computational Complexity at 3/06/2008 09:49:00 AM