2011 Canadian Election Thread

[SeoulFire]

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.

[IliketoPuck]

The difference with the Income Trust issue is that it affected all Canadians equally. Not just Alberta and Saskatchewan.

[Devil's Rule]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

The difference with the Income Trust issue is that it affected all Canadians equally. Not just Alberta and Saskatchewan.

True, but never the less it affected me in a huge way, and therefore I cannot ignore it.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Devil's Rule

True, but never the less it affected me in a huge way, and therefore I cannot ignore it.

It affected me too. Just like it affected every Canadian and not a selected few. Not a great decision, but it was a business loophole that cost the government taxes, and nothing bugs the government mroe than not getting its taxes.

IMO it doesn't matter which government you have elected, Liberal or CPC, if there is a way to get more $$ the government will generally do so.

[Azure]

Maybe its just me, but it really seems like all the Liberals are doing is slinging mud. Every single issue I'm reading about is an attack on Harper for something that happened in the past, and has nothing to do with an actual 'issue' such as health care, the economy, Afghanistan, etc, etc.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

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.

Outcome 3 contradicts the assumption leading to it (in that if Alberta's voting is relevant to putting the Liberals in power, then there would be consequences to screwing us). Yes, the underlying assumptions are important to the model, but mine is consistent with the idea that wasting votes diminishes our power, which I believe to be fundamentally sound. Basically what you're saying is that the Liberals have incentive to try to appeal to the largest voting blocks at the expense of the smaller ones, but that's equally true of any other party, CPC included. The way to gain power as a small voting block is to be the kingmaker... which is pretty much the opposite of what Alberta does.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

Maybe its just me, but it really seems like all the Liberals are doing is slinging mud. Every single issue I'm reading about is an attack on Harper for something that happened in the past, and has nothing to do with an actual 'issue' such as health care, the economy, Afghanistan, etc, etc.

Welcome to an election campaign! What would you consider the CPC is doing that is any different?

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by SebC

Outcome 3 contradicts the assumption leading to it (in that if Alberta's voting is relevant to putting the Liberals in power, then there would be consequences to screwing us). Yes, the underlying assumptions are important to the model, but mine is consistent with the idea that wasting votes diminishes our power, which I believe to be fundamentally sound.

Not if the eastern political gains are significant enough to offset the losses in the west. The info in parenthesis was a jab and probably should not be there. Screwing Alberta could also lead to increases elsewhere if the monies stolen are strategically distributed.

[Devil's Rule]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

It affected me too. Just like it affected every Canadian and not a selected few. Not a great decision, but it was a business loophole that cost the government taxes, and nothing bugs the government mroe than not getting its taxes.

IMO it doesn't matter which government you have elected, Liberal or CPC, if there is a way to get more $$ the government will generally do so.

Absolutely. The only difference is that the Liberals were openly suggesting the changes and the Conservatives were campaigning against changes, which is why they got my vote that election.

If I am not mistaken, that same campaign the Conservatives had mentioned in their documents that they would like to have capital gains tax abolished...which really got my attention, but as we see now never materialized. Them not following up on that agenda item I actually don't blame them, but blame the minority government situation. So I would like to think.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Not if the eastern political gains are significant enough to offset the losses in the west. The info in parenthesis was a jab and probably should not be there. Screwing Alberta could also lead to increases elsewhere if the monies stolen are strategically distributed.

Sorry, I was adding to my post as you wrote this. Check it out!

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

Thus, the safest course of action is to vote CPC and continue to be ignored.

Okey, but you're neglecting to mention that the CPC's logical response to such underlaying assumptions (specifically the assumption that E v. W is a zero-sum game & your "safest course" conclusion) is also to ignore Alberta. I mean... why bother pandering to Alberta if your going to get their votes regardless of what you do? If that assumption is true then the more efficient course of action is to pander to the other entity thereby creating a net negative to Alberta.

Being a near monotone voting block is ultimately self-harming behavior. Diversification is, as they say, the key to success.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devil's Rule

True, but never the less it affected me in a huge way, and therefore I cannot ignore it.

Which, of course, is a completely reasonable argument.

On the NEP thing, the "get over it" angle might work if the Liberals of today were shown to not be the Liberals of 30 years ago. In a lot of ways they are not, but when it comes to shifting money from west to east, nothing really has changed. The exemptions they proposed for Kyoto and the Green Shift, as two examples, showed that Liberal policy remains one of "screw Alberta to benefit Ontario". Someone, I forget who, replied to me noting that the Tories also have a cap and trade proposal in their platform. But, as already mentioned, I don't expect the Conservative plan will be nearly as unequal as I expect the Liberal plan will be.

In short, our position in the Liberal Canada has long been that of the woman with the deadbeat husband who sits on his ass all day taking our money and goodwill and offering nothing but insults and abuse in return if we talk back.

That is why I mentioned having the Libs go to the oil patch and push their policies directly first. If the big companies come out and say "well, this will hurt us a bit, but it appears to be proposed fairly and offers x, y and z benefit overall", then you won't see the NEP2 allegations that followed the Green Shift proposal.

[Slava]

^ Both the major parties have cap and trade, which I definitely disagree with. I would prefer to see a carbon tax...that would actually lead to lower emissions which is the entire point. The cap and trade by either the CPC or Liberals is a bad idea, and hits Alberta unequally IMO.

[Devil's Rule]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Which, of course, is a completely reasonable argument.

On the NEP thing, the "get over it" angle might work if the Liberals of today were shown to not be the Liberals of 30 years ago. In a lot of ways they are not, but when it comes to shifting money from west to east, nothing really has changed. The exemptions they proposed for Kyoto and the Green Shift, as two examples, showed that Liberal policy remains one of "screw Alberta to benefit Ontario". Someone, I forget who, replied to me noting that the Tories also have a cap and trade proposal in their platform. But, as already mentioned, I don't expect the Conservative plan will be nearly as unequal as I expect the Liberal plan will be.

In short, our position in the Liberal Canada has long been that of the woman with the deadbeat husband who sits on his ass all day taking our money and goodwill and offering nothing but insults and abuse in return if we talk back.

That is why I mentioned having the Libs go to the oil patch and push their policies directly first. If the big companies come out and say "well, this will hurt us a bit, but it appears to be proposed fairly and offers x, y and z benefit overall", then you won't see the NEP2 allegations that followed the Green Shift proposal.

Well said, and I agree with most what you mentioned. I'm not sure about the item I highlighted in red.

I've never been loyal to a particular party, I normally try to look at what the platforms are out there and then vote accord to what suits my own agenda best. The unfortunate issue with that method of voting I assume I will be doomed for a lifetime of let-downs.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Okey, but you're neglecting to mention that the CPC's logical response to such underlaying assumptions (specifically the assumption that E v. W is a zero-sum game & your "safest course" conclusion) is also to ignore Alberta. I mean... why bother pandering to Alberta if your going to get their votes regardless of what you do? If that assumption is true then the more efficient course of action is to pander to the other entity thereby creating a net negative to Alberta.

Clearly the E vs. W is not a zero sum game and that favor in the East is >>> than favor in the West. The CPC is in a bind as they do not want to alienate the West through policy yet they cannot "pander" to them either for fear of losing seats in the East. The Liberals on the other hand can do whatever the hell they want as the potential gains though "pandering" would be insignificant against their losses in the East - the incentive is much higher to **** the West (again) due to the asymmetric nature of our demographics.

I strongly feel that any policy that benefits the West would have enormous (and negative) repercussions in the East (I should be saying Central Canada). While not ideal, CPC is the least damaging.

Being a near monotone voting block is ultimately self-harming behavior. Diversification is, as they say, the key to success.

I would gladly vote for a party that would strongly represent the West - unfortunately such a party (like the BQ) does not exist here.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Okey, but you're neglecting to mention that the CPC's logical response to such underlaying assumptions (specifically the assumption that E v. W is a zero-sum game & your "safest course" conclusion) is also to ignore Alberta. I mean... why bother pandering to Alberta if your going to get their votes regardless of what you do? If that assumption is true then the more efficient course of action is to pander to the other entity thereby creating a net negative to Alberta.

Being a near monotone voting block is ultimately self-harming behavior. Diversification is, as they say, the key to success.

Ask the PCs about that. They pissed the west off and it led to the downfall of their party.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Someone, I forget who, replied to me noting that the Tories also have a cap and trade proposal in their platform. But, as already mentioned, I don't expect the Conservative plan will be nearly as unequal as I expect the Liberal plan will be.

.........................

That is why I mentioned having the Libs go to the oil patch and push their policies directly first. If the big companies come out and say "well, this will hurt us a bit, but it appears to be proposed fairly and offers x, y and z benefit overall", then you won't see the NEP2 allegations that followed the Green Shift proposal

That was me. Someone earlier in the thread contacted the local Liberal candidate and asked about it...

Thanks for the question. Currently Alberta, BC Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are working with a number of US states to implement a cap and trade program.

In the Liberal platform the money raised through the auctioning of credits under the cap and trade system will stay in Alberta. It will be invested through partnerships with the province and industry in technologies and science to reduce green house gas emissions and ensure the protection of water. It will create jobs, many of them green, in Alberta, and technologies that can be exported to the world. A recent CD Howe study confirms that this kind of policy can in fact be implemented without cash outflows from the provinces in which money is collected.

Moreover, the Liberal cap and trade policy will apply evenly and fairly to all sectors of the economy across the entire country. The oil sands will not be singled out.

I am meeting with members of the oil and gas industry to better understand and communicate on this issue. Is this helpful? If you have specific questions I will raise them with the party and the industry experts myself, and get back to you.

So yay you! your getting your oil patch consultation and an assurance that no one sector will be singled out (Which "Turning the Corner" also emphasised).

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Ask the PCs about that. They pissed the west off and it led to the downfall of their party.

More accurately they pissed off everybody and it led to the downfall of their party. It's not like they lost the west and that was it... they lost the West (conservative populists), Quebec (Francophone Nationalists), and Ontario (Baystreet Tories).

Really Diversification was the key element in their gaining power in the first place last time out.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its funny, in the 1993 federal election, when the Conservatives were destroyed, the backlash showed 4 Liberals elected in Alberta, 5 in Saskatchewan.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

Welcome to an election campaign! What would you consider the CPC is doing that is any different?

I know they are doing it to some extent, but the Liberals do seem worse.

I'm not even talking about the attack ads either.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Azure

I know they are doing it to some extent, but the Liberals do seem worse.

I'm not even talking about the attack ads either.

Honestly, that's the nature of any election. The incumbent candidate/party defends their record while the opposition candidates/parties criticize the incumbent's record. When he was running against Paul Martin in 2004 and 2006, Harper was no better or worse than Ignatieff is now.