Nash Equlibrium On The Oppositon
-
This is an adaptation of Workers' Party Goh Meng Seng's version of the Nash Equilibrium to explain why the win-win situation is the status quo, where PAP and the oppositions do not contest with each other at all in the next election. I am using the exact assumptions and premises that he uses for his anti-casino analysis to reach this conclusion.
http://img29.echo.cx/my.php?image=neopposition6wd.jpg -
Originally posted by Deen Lee:
Interesting, but do you really think the PAP would stand still and do nothing just to achieve the so-called "win-win situation"? Potong Pasir and Hougang are the stumbling blocks in the ruling party's plans to divide up, to their strategic advantage, the entire electorate of Singapore.
This is an adaptation of Workers' Party Goh Meng Seng's version of the Nash Equilibrium to explain why the win-win situation is the status quo, where PAP and the oppositions do not contest with each other at all in the next election. I am using the exact assumptions and premises that he uses for his anti-casino analysis to reach this conclusion.
-
Using a simple 2x2 Nash equilibrium model in this case is an over simplification of a political matter which has too many variables.
If I understand the example correctly, you are implying that the government should allow the opposition to "win" seats in Parliament by not contesting the wards the opposition are contesting in for Singapore to have a win-win situation.
So how many seats exactly does the ruling party "give" to the opposition?
1 seat? 10 seats? Or until it is 51%-49% in favour of the ruling party?
I don't think Nash Equlibirium can be meaningfully applied in this situation, since it is not just a matter of win-win situation. There are also political implications to consider. -
Agree...there are some problems with this model as well. It presupposes plans of action that have not been carried out. Nash Equilibrium is based on the assumption that two or more actors should not deviate from their strategy, so as to gain optimal payoffs.Originally posted by charlize:Using a simple 2x2 Nash equilibrium model in this case is an over simplification of a political matter which has too many variables.
If I understand the example correctly, you are implying that the government should allow the opposition to "win" seats in Parliament by not contesting the wards the opposition are contesting in for Singapore to have a win-win situation.
So how many seats exactly does the ruling party "give" to the opposition?
1 seat? 10 seats? Or until it is 51%-49% in favour of the ruling party?
I don't think Nash Equlibirium can be meaningfully applied in this situation, since it is not just a matter of win-win situation. There are also political implications to consider.
The strategies for both opposition and ruling party are different: The PAP would wish to fully dominate parliament (i.e. no opposition), while the opposition has to increase or at least maintain its current representation in parliament. As is, the odds are already heavily stacked against them.
Taking your assumption that the Yes/No represents decision, the outcome for PAP = Yes, and Opposition = No, the outcome will still invariably lead to stronger PAP dominance, notwithstanding what little the opposition can actually do about it. (I refer to the top right box)
A policy of no-contest would mean that the status quo remains. This remains questionable...Potong Pasir remains under opposition, but just barely...
Perhaps what we need to employ in place of this is a series of mixed game strategies...
Nash Equilibrium...sometimes referred to as Prisoner's Dilemma, is not feasible in this case, since the results would still favour the dominant group. Further, the chances that one side would 'defect' are very high in this instance.
My 2 cents..
-
In politics, there probably many "nash equlibria".
Just a matter of choosing which one that scores the most political points.
-
Dear Tango n Charlize,
Thanks very much for your comment. I also had my reservations about the methodology being used on the subject issue, but decide to put it up to test the responses. While my subject of analysis is on opposition, there is another similar analysis done on casino which uses the same methodology, one that I have adapted closely to mine. Care to comment. Thanks
http://img127.echo.cx/my.php?image=gmscasinochart030rc.jpg -
I reiterate ... again.Originally posted by Deen Lee:Dear Tango n Charlize,
Thanks very much for your comment. I also had my reservations about the methodology being used on the subject issue, but decide to put it up to test the responses. While my subject of analysis is on opposition, there is another similar analysis done on casino which uses the same methodology, one that I have adapted closely to mine. Care to comment. Thanks
http://img127.echo.cx/my.php?image=gmscasinochart030rc.jpg
The 2 x 2 Nash Equilibrium model used here is too simplistic to give any useful input on the potential "gains" by the players. You look at the thread on casino. It has gone up to 20 over pages and yet, there is no (I doubt there ever will be) consensus on whether the casino is "good" or "bad".
In game theory, you have to make a lot of assumptions and hold some things constant. Eg. players are rational, players opt for the strategy with the best return/profit/gain etc.
In the real world be it in economics or politics, there are some variables which are not quantifiable. Players may not opt for the best "gain" because of moral, ethical, social and/or religious considerations.
To have a more realistic model would require a larger matrix, 10 x 10 or 100 x 100 or bigger, incorporating as many possible scenarios with their potential "gains" listed out. Even if it was possible to have such a matrix, there are potentially many Nash equilibriums in the matrix itself.
My 2 cents worth too.