Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
A brief introduction to game theory.
I posit that Alberta's relationship with the Liberal party is a prisoner's dilemma (assuming most Albertans would like to be pandered to, but inherently dislike voting Liberal).
For the Liberals:
If they ignore us and we vote for them, great.
If they pander to us and we vote for them, good.
If they ignore us and we don't vote for them, okay.
If they pander to us and we don't vote for them, bad.
Whether or not we vote for them, their best strategy is to ignore us.
For Albertans:
If we don't vote for them and they pander to us, great.
If we vote for them and they pander to us, good.
If we don't vote for them and they ignore us, okay.
If we vote for them and they ignore us, bad.
Whether or not they pander to us, our best strategy is to not vote for them.
Yet, mutual co-operation yields better results for both Albertans and the Liberals than going with the "best strategy" - which leads to mutual relation. Such is the nature of a prisoner's dilemma.
Now, because this happens over multiple elections, our prisoner's dilemma becomes an interated prisoner's dilemma. You know what the best strategy for iterated prisoner's dilemma is? Tit-for-tat with forgiveness, precisely because it allows you do become unstuck from mutual retaliation whereas a both parties employing a pure tit-for-tat strategy does not.
Either Albertans or the Liberals could extend the first olive branch, but if we want our vote to start mattering to the Liberals (and by extension, to matter more to the Conservatives), the only way we can start a mutually beneficial relationship with them is to start voting for them whether they deserve it or not. Having them start the process by "forgiving" us is not something that's within our control.
|
This all depends on the underlying assumptions. What you have neglected is one of the fundamental aspects of the dilemma - the incentive to cheat and the consequences from cheating or going against what would produce a pareto efficient situation.
For the situation to work the Libs would have to campaign for positive or "fair" treatment of Alberta (resources) and that the CPC (other parties are irrelevant) would continue to be apathetic to the region.
From the perspective of an Albertan voter the possible outcomes are:
1. Elect the Liberals and they follow through - moderate gains on the status quo
2. Elect the Liberals and they do nothing different - same **** different party
3. Elect the Liberals and they bend us over the bench - massive losses
The perspective of the Liberal Party is even more convoluted as there would be political ramifications (in the East) to the above policy. For simplicity let's assume:
a. Campaigning on these issues would create political loss in the east
b. Following through to the west would create much more political loss in the east
c. Political gain in the west is much less important than the political loss in the east
The Liberal Party (if elected) has the outcomes as being:
1. Follow through and create moderate gains in the west while suffering much larger losses in the more influential east
2. Re-neg on the promises and keep the status quo - some political loss in the east
3. Re-neg on the promises and bend Alberta over a barrel and gain massive monetary gains for the east and massive political appeal in the east (while suffering no losses of significance as they never really had the support anyways)
So if you want to look at game theory then the Liberals have far more to lose by following through on their promises to the West than they have to gain. Thus, their safest course of action is to get elected and screw Alberta.
People in Alberta have far more to lose by taking a chance on the Liberals than they have to gain if they (the Liberals) actually follow through (on campaign promises they will never make). Thus, the safest course of action is to vote CPC and continue to be ignored.
It all depends on the underlying assumptions - you can spin it any way you like.
The iterated version would not produce any other outcomes. From the Liberal point of view, cooperating would have to yield a net benefit to the party where it can be reasonably (?) assumed that it would result in a substantial net loss.