The Dangerous Imperfections of a 3-way Vote

Image result for game theoryImage result for game theory

From what I am understanding, from class and this article, voting can be looked at under the same idea as Game Theory. However, I do not think that trusting the government should be a game of chance.
As in the current events in the United Kingdom, one cannot simply vote what their preference would be. One has to weigh the outcome of their vote against what others appear to be voting. If I want candidate C to win, I may actually have to vote for candidate A so that candidate B doesn’t get the most votes.
This is also the case in the United Kingdom with the Brexit Referendum. However, their vote comes with even more questions than just who wins. Their vote also asks, “what next”, if they choose to leave.
I am curious if there ever was a time in voting history, if one could actually vote their preference without worrying about the “what if’s”.

One Reply to “The Dangerous Imperfections of a 3-way Vote”

  1. Attachment

    Hi Rebecca,
    I agree with you that when making an important decision like voting for a presidential candidate you must weight all options and not make any drastic decisions. However, I am a little confused what you’re saying. If you want candidate C to win, why not just vote for C rather than A so candidate B doesn’t win?

    Or are you trying to say that if candidate C has no chance, you must chose A so candidate B has a lower chance to win?

    Either way, why don’t people just vote for the candidate they believe in and not try and play chess with the political system and think three moves ahead. As stated before I certainly agree that when making important decisions, you must take it seriously. I never made the connection from voting theory to game theory.

Leave a Reply