Presidential Election 2016: A Prisoner's Dilemma

Introduction

I wrote in a previous post that the 2016 Presidential election is a moral dilemma for many voters.  But that is not the only kind of dilemma we can use to analyze this event.  In this post, I look at the election as a sort of Prisoner's dilemma, that is, as a kind of economics, expected value, or rational dilemma.  We can take the analogy and assess the corresponding voter's dilemma in order to determine how this dilemma may be resolved.

The Prisoner's Dilemma

One can add nuances to the prisoner's dilemma, but the essential ingredients are something like the following. 

Two criminals that participated in the same crime are arrested and placed in separate cells from which they cannot communicate or coordinate.  The possible outcomes and resulting jail sentences are as follows:

• If both prisoners betray each other by confessing the other's crime, both will serve 2 years in jail.
• If one betrays the other, but the other remains silent, then the former will get out of jail while the latter will serve 3 years of jail time.
• If neither betrays the other, then both of them will serve 1 year of jail time. 

What should the prisoners do?

The dilemma is that, from the standpoint of each individual prisoner, it is rational to betray the other prisoner.  If A betrays B, then either A gets out of jail immediately (B did not betray A) or A serves two years (B also betrayed A) which is better than 3 years (which would happen if B betrayed A but A didn't betray B).  So both prisoners reason that they should betray the other, and both end up with 2 years in jail.

However, from the "God's eye" perspective, the best solution is for neither prisoner to betray the other.  In the first scenario, 4 years total are served.  In the second scenario, 3 years are served.  In the last scenario, 2 years are served.  So if the prisoners are wanting to have the least amount of jail time in total, they should not betray each other.  This would be the rational thing to do.

So the dilemma is that if both prisoner's act rationally, this leads to a less desirable result for both.  But since it is irrational to act towards a less desirable result, rationality would seem to dictate a different course of action.  Since rationality seems to dictate two differing courses of action, we have a dilemma.  What in fact is the rational thing to do?  Is there a way to get to the overall optimal solution in which neither prisoner betrays the other?

The Solution: Communication/Coordination

Ultimately, the solution is to have communication/coordination.  If the prisoner's could coordinate their actions, then they could both not betray the other, and thus, end up in the most desirable outcome.  Such coordination is forbidden in the original setup, but in other setups, it is allowed.  It is this coordination and the feedback of what the other prisoner does which solves the dilemma.

The Voter's Dilemma

What does this have to do with the election?  Have you heard things like:

• "Any third party vote is a vote for Trump."
• "If you don't vote for Trump, then you are basically voting for Clinton."
• "I'm not voting for Clinton: I'm voting against Trump."

I recall hearing that more than 60% of all voters are not voting for a candidate but are voting against the other candidate.  Most of us want a good third candidate, and maybe more of us could agree on a third candidate than we could on either Trump or Clinton.  If this were true, then this third candidate would actually be more popular than either Clinton or Trump.

However, we fear voting for a third party because if we do, our least favorite candidate may win.  So we ignore third parties, even if they could potentially unite more Americans than the other candidates could.  We compromise.  Again and again and again.  I vote Democrat and you vote Republican when maybe both of us would prefer a third option, or we could at least both agree to support a third option over the other two options as the best outcome overall.

If we could coordinate our voting, then maybe we could get out of the dilemma between the two major candidates and on to the optimal solution of a third party candidate.  But how can we do this?

A Solution?

It's rather strange that in 2016 we still have to wait for election day to coordinate our various desires for the President for the next 4 years by casting our vote.  And even then, the result may be surprising to many or most.  It is like we are all gambling.  How odd that elections of this magnitude should be a surprise in this day and age, and that we can't figure out a better way to coordinate our various interests towards the optimal solution.  Wouldn't it be nice if Democrats and Republicans could unite behind a single candidate who, through various means of communication, social media, polling, etc. was settled on prior to election day?  What if we could coordinate our votes to pick the best overall candidate?

This is not an endorsement for Gary Johnson, but I think the method proposed by this site to coordinate a Democrat's third party vote with a Republican's third party vote is getting at the sort of thing that is needed.  It provides a way out of the prisoner's dilemma for our 2016 election by coordinating the votes of would-be Democrats and Republicans towards a (presumably) more desirable third-party candidate.

Conclusion

Even if you are a hardline Democrat or Republican, I think you can agree that our current situation presents a real problem for our election system.  And I hope you can appreciate the similarities it has to the Prisoner's Dilemma.  Our method of voting does not seem to lead Americans towards the optimal candidate, a candidate that substantially more than 50.1% of Americans will support (and do so willingly, not begrudgingly).  Consequently, the more ways that we can find to effectively coordinate our electoral desires towards the best overall candidates, the better off we will all be, and the better off our elections will be.

Moral Dilemmas and the 2016 Presidential Election

Introduction

More than any year in recent history, Americans seemed to be faced with two bad choices for President.  And it just seems to be getting worse. Clinton's email scandals continue to increase while Trump's crude talk and inappropriate behavior has caused a rupture in the Republican party.  It seems like Americans have no good choice, maybe even no morally permissible choice.  But is this true?  Do we have a moral dilemma?

Ethical Theory

As I observe what especially Republican leaders are saying about their positions on Trump, I am reminded of my philosophical ethical training and how it's concepts may be useful for understanding where we are at in the political discourse.  The concepts come from normative ethical theory, which consists of views that largely fall into three camps:

• Consequentialism: whether an action is morally right or wrong depends solely on its consequences.
• Deontology: whether an action is morally right or wrong does not depend solely on its consequences.  Intentions, the inherent nature of the act, and other factors may contribute to its rightness or wrongness.
• Virtue ethics: whether an action is morally right or wrong depends on whether a morally virtuous agent would do it.  If so, the action is right.  If not, it is wrong.  The virtuous agent will usually consider consequences, the nature of the act, and so forth, but it is NOT necessary for two virtuous agents to arrive at the same conclusion.

With these theories in mind, think on what people have said about the two candidates. You have probably heard things like:

• "I don't like Donald Trump, but I can't vote for Hillary.  Trump is the lesser of the two evils."
• "Hillary isn't great, but she is better than Trump."
• "I can't vote for either candidate.  Voting for either of them would be wrong."

Consider this article for the Washington Post.  In it, Republican leaders say the following things regarding Trump:

• Newt Gingrich:
• “It’s time for him to send targeted messages to each district and state and have Republican voters ask their candidates: ‘Are you going to help us defeat Hillary Clinton?’ And Trump should make it clear that the side effect of not helping Trump is electing Hillary Clinton.”
• Paul Ryan:
• "Ryan said Monday that he would no longer defend or campaign with Trump. "
• Marco Rubio
• “I disagree with him on many things, but I disagree with his opponent on virtually everything,” Rubio said. “I wish we had better choices for President. But I do not want Hillary Clinton to be our next President. And therefore my position has not changed.”
• Marsha Blackburn
• “You don’t go after somebody who is, as Ronald Reagan would say, your 80 percent friend. What you do is stand with them... And it is not helpful to have this kind of drama going on. What you need to do is say we have a binary choice.”

Or this article on Jeb Bush:

• "I haven't made up my mind what I'm going to do — I'm going to vote and I've made it clear I'm not going to vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton," Bush told reporters. "I'm not derelict in my civic duties, I'm going to vote, but the presidency is a place where, for whatever reason, I'm not comfortable supporting either party's nominee."

As seen above, some have taken the consequentialist route by advocating for the lesser of two evils (Gingrich, Rubio, Blackburn) while others have taken a more deontological approach (Ryan, Bush). 

Moral Dilemmas

How does this apply to moral dilemmas?  Let us simply define a moral dilemma to be a moral situation in which an agent must make a decision between two (or more) seemingly immoral courses of action.  How does the agent resolve the situation and make a decision?

The consequentialist always has a way out.  In fact, there is no such thing as a true moral dilemma for the consequentialist, since the right thing to do is always whatever is best consequentially (or least bad).  It is doubtful that the choices would be equally bad on one's estimation, so one can always determine which outcome to choose, no matter how bad it is.  Some of the above Republicans have made that decision: no matter what Trump does, Clinton would be consequentially worse, so they will vote for him.

The virtue ethicist always has a way out.  If you are a virtuous agent, then no matter what you decide, as long as you are making your decision exercising your virtue, you will make a correct or virtuous decision.  There may not be a the correct decision.  I bet that many such virtuous Americans will vote.  Some will vote for Clinton while other will vote for Trump, and in a certain sense, both kinds of votes will be morally correct.  Unless we are willing to say that no virtuous person could possibly vote for Trump, or no virtuous person could possibly vote for Clinton, then we have to allow for this possibility.

But what if one has a deontological bent?  What if one believes that voting for Clinton would be morally impermissible AND voting for Trump would also be morally impermissible?  That is, both candidates have crossed a certain moral threshold such that it would be wrong to vote for either?  This seems to be the stance that Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, and other Republicans that have stepped away from Trump are taking.

The options available to those that find themselves in such a position seem to be:

• Don't vote: if you don't vote for either of them, you are not morally culpable.
• Vote for a third party: if you can't vote for either major party candidate and you want to or believe you must vote, then you have to find a third option to vote for.

In this way, the deontologist refuses to accept the terms of the moral dilemma as a forced choice between two or more morally impermissible options.  Instead, he or she finds another alternative or refuses to make any choice at all.

Conclusion

Truth be told, I am finding myself more and more in the deontological camp on this issue.  So I will likely vote third party.  For whom?   I have no idea.  But I feel much like Jeb Bush right now, and it is very sad.  In some sense, it doesn't really matter for me as I live in Washington state and it will assuredly be won by Clinton, so the pressure is off.  But if I were in a swing state, what would I do?  Go the consequentialist route and vote for the candidate I think will do the least harm no matter how much I dislike the candidate?  Or maintain ethical purity and vote for a third party, knowing full well that similar actions by others may result in my least favorite candidate taking office?

It's a tough choice.  It's a moral dilemma.

Workplace Philosophy as Political Philosophy

I observed recently that many traditionally political concepts had applications in the workplace.  That is, I could think of the workplace as a micro political society, with rulers, laws, economics, and social phenomena.  In thinking about the workplace in such terms, the knowledge related to these concepts could be fruitfully applied to the workplace.  In other words, I could characterize various aspects of the work environment and experience using analogous political concepts, and then apply what I knew about such political concepts to the analogous workplace concept to gain insight.  Make sense?

 

Perhaps this isn't news to you, but I found the comparison to be useful.  Here is an example to show what I mean and how thinking in this way may be helpful.

 

Type of Government = Management and Decision Philosophy

Some of us may jokingly refer to our boss as a "tyrant" and not give the analogy a second thought.  But such jokes contain more truth in them than we often give them credit.  As a consultant, I have worked in many organizations and under many different management styles.  Here are two extremes:

 

Anarchy = The Absent Manager/Decision Maker

I've worked for managers that relied completely on bottom up decision making and allowed for unceasing input and discussion in meetings.  Oftentimes, the manager was unavailable and absent.  Consequently, decisions were rarely made and were not made with authority, unified action, or clear direction.  The manager would swoop in for fire drills (perceived or real) that were often caused by the lack of direction given.  The overall result was that the team experienced chaotic, inefficient, and sluggish behavior in achieving objectives.

 

Tyranny = The Micro Manager/Decision Maker

I have also worked for managers that completely exercised a top down decision making style.  While such leadership was strong and decisive, there was little input or discussion from the ground floor implementers and a general fear of voicing opinions and suggestions. Decisive action often went in the wrong direction.  Employees were fearful and frustrated, feeling undervalued and as though they were always under the gun.

 

History suggests that, as in politics, a middle ground seems to be best.  We can call it a democratic republic style of management and decision making. 

 

Democratic Republic = The Informed Manager/Decision Maker

The ideal manager truly leads.  He or she takes decisive action, but only after soliciting input from those who are responsible for implementing and maintaining business solutions and processes.  Employees feel they are truly heard and respected, knowing that their opinions do matter and are considered as part of any final decision. 

 

This manager trusts his or her direct reports to do their jobs.  Amazing, right?  In fact, this manager backs his or her direct reports in the decisions they make, having set clear expectations and roles for how they are to do their jobs.  The manager empowers his or her direct reports to do their jobs effectively, giving them the resources and authority needed to take action when needed.  Thus, the manager doesn't need to do their job for them.

 

The manager is primarily concerned about setting the general direction of the organization.  He or she only gets involved in the details when unforeseen problems arise or issues are escalated, requiring quick authoritative decision making or a course correction.

 

More details could be added, but you get the general idea.  This manager functions more like a member of congress or a president.  He or she is clearly a leader, but is a leader for the people, for the purposes of the organization and its members.  While not necessarily reflecting current realities, that is how the US government was originally intended to function.  It is a model that has served our country well.  Perhaps it can serve our business organizations well too.

 

There is nothing radical or revolutionary here.  Simply, the observation that a company, an organization, a workplace is a micro society of its own.  Consequently, it can be studied and treated as such by its members, for their good and its success, or their harm and ultimately its failure.