When one thinks Economics, one may think of concepts such as “supply and demand” and “utility curves”.  However, as “Playing ‘Games’ with Your Vote’ shows, game theory reigns may reign supreme in the heated primaries for our next presidential election.

An example of this can be spotlighted in the Wisconsin caucuses: each voter has one vote but have multiple choices.  A voter can cross over and vote Republican if he/she is a registered Democrat, and vice versa.  This voting law can lead to some game playing.  This example highlights the role of game theory in the democratic process - as the vote in this case is largely about choices and repercussions of that choice.

You see, the trick here is that supporters of McCain, a Republican candidate who has pretty much sealed his bid for the Republican ticket, can choose to cross over and vote for either Obama or Clinton in the hopes that they are voting for the weaker candidate should he/she go up against McCain in the national election.  This could work towards Clinton as the national polls show her to be losing steam (until recently).  The article also sites another case in history, that of Abraham Lincoln’s election, as another instance of Game Theory playing a key role in selecting our nation’s chief executive officer: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/industries/government/article/playing-games-vote_482985_18.html

In the previous example, the Game Theory payoff structure goes as follows:  If a Republican chooses to vote for Clinton, the payoff would be that he/she would enjoy an easier time for McCain in the national elections.  However, this would also mean one less vote for McCain in the primaries, and hence a higher chance of Romney winning the primaries in the short term.  Obama wound up winnin gthe Wisconsin caususes, but Game Theory has its uses beyond prisoners and confessions it seems.