The blood sport that is the American Presidential race this go-around is finally over. While Obama and McCain announced their candidacies in February and April 2007, respectively, the following two years have been nothing but the same kind of bliss that one can only experience in the chair of an orthodontist who just ran out of Novocaine. While the run to the White House captivates all the news that we read wherever in the world we might be, getting people out to vote is similar to pulling teeth. 60% of all eligible voters turned out to the polls in 2000, while 2004 showed a marked increase with some 64% of all eligible voters racing to cast their ballots. 2008, meanwhile, showed… about the same level of voter turnout as 2004.

Image Credit: Fran Priestly

Now that this election season (which has, for the record, covered 7 actual seasons) is mercifully over, we have to wonder: is this all really necessary or is it just a huge fundraising drive? Jerry Lewis has only one day for MDA, why should political parties get 600? How does this help us as the electorate choose the precise person that we want to be president? While it could be argued that politicians have many more dysfunctions that just one and need that extra time and money, the truth is actually a little more scientific than that. With the political system in the United States centered around only two major parties, we don’t have the ability to match with a candidate that meets every one of our particular criteria. Thus, the problem is one of game theory.

Game Theory is something that many may be familiar with through a brief explanation in the movie A Beautiful Mind. The thought behind it is that we can plug in different variations into a chart and plot potential outcomes. This idea is taught through the example of “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” to thousands of hungover undergrads every year, but I have found that a simple switch to “The Drinking Dilemma” to be a more easily understood model.

Imagine, if you will, a world where 2 people are hanging out after class and decide they each want a pint, and would love to have a cigarette while drinking the beer. Both are up for it, but they only have $8 a piece. The cost of a beer at the bar is $4.50 each, and a pack of 20 cigarettes is $7. If they work together, they could pool their money and have 16 bucks. That’s enough for each to get one beer and split a pack of smokes. If they don’t then they can either get a beer or a pack of Lucky’s but not both. If neither wants to pony up the dough, then no one gets anything and they go home to watch a re-run of Friends.

This is game theory. Depending on how independent actors perform in a situation, we can measure out predictable outcomes. While the table can get infinitely complex depending on the number of actors and outcomes, this is it essentially it. Using this model can help to understand the possible reasoning behind why people do certain things, and what might happen when they do.

Ok, ok. We all get game theory, but what does it have to do with the idea of the length of electoral politics, particularly with only two real candidates? It’s all about a twist of game theory that for the sake of time we’ll call “Chicken Theory.”

Remember how The Fonz used to play chicken, a game where two cars drive at each other, and if one “chickened out” and swerved out of the way, they lost? Ergo, Chicken Theory. It’s a simplified version of the “Drinker’s Dilemma” above. The end result in a game of chicken is that you may win, lose, or crash, but there is no ranking of possible outcomes. This is similar to how our president is elected. Vote for one or the other, and you may win or lose (sorry Mr. Gore, there is no tying). However, there is no relative ranking of which solution is better–to vote or not to vote. After all, we don’t get either a beer or cigs if we don’t play, it’s just kind of a win or lose situation. That’s how a lot of us feel about voting for president, and it’s particularly worse if we don’t have a preference for either candidate.

Now, let’s take these concepts and enter the Thunderdome we call The Primary Season.

Unlike the voting abilities of citizens of many other western democracies who have a laundry list of potential candidates who face each other off in a round-robin MMA match, we here in the United States we have a run off system that whittles down the perspective candidates through state by state caucuses and primaries. While the people of Iowa and New Hampshire may have the ability to knock out some of the lightweights before they can get serious support around the country, the idea behind this is to allow the public to choose the perfect candidate to run against the evil opposition on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in every other even year.

Despite this opportunity, we still do not see voter turnout in the way that a “real democracy” should have. The Chicken Theory, combined with the idea of Rational Choice Theory supplies one argument to the reasoning behind this apathy. Basically, everyone acts rationally dependent upon what their needs are. If we have no reason to vote, we won’t. Using this kind of logic, there are all kinds of assumptions as to why Americans don’t show up to vote on election day: It doesn’t matter who we vote for because they’re all crooked anyway, we don’t get the day off from work, it’s a hassle to get to the polling place to vote, it may be raining, we don’t like the candidates, there’s something good on T.V., we have to stay home to wash the cat, we’re worried about having a “Homer Simpson” experience with an e-voting machine, whatever. With the large numbers of people around the country voting, some of whom have been dead and gone in Chicago for years now, my vote won’t matter anyway. The idea that our democratic duty is held in our hands is the only reason that many of us vote. That and sometimes there’s free coffee and doughnuts.

Despite all the game theory that can be applied to what happens depending on who we vote for, or not vote at all, the primary system has ideally shown us all the potential candidates that may list their return address as 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, D.C., 20500, but only if people participate in the process. It takes a while and may be very expensive and boring, but it’s the way our system works. The only way to change it, really, is to pass a constitutional amendment. You still have to go through the process to get a chance to do that though.

Whether “Vote or Die” appeals to you, or you agree with Hank Hill in that “not voting makes me more of an American,” realize that there are reasons why this process has turned into a two year slugfest.

All the dysfunctional politicians.