Faisal Wali
A PAP Rally during General Election 2011
During my frequent work holiday trips back to Singapore, I usually catch up with friends and engage in discussions on topics revolving around Singapore. One popular topic is politics, and one day we asked one another who each voted for during the recently concluded General Elections.
One of my friends boasted:”You know I kept the Grow & Share carrots dangled by the ruling party but I voted for the opposition party contesting my ward!”
My friend went on to say,”If more of us vote for the opposition, maybe we will get better pre-election handouts or other perks. Maybe, they (ruling party) will think that in order to lure us into voting for them, they need to dangle bigger carrots before us. “ At first, I laughed it off, but upon serious introspection, what emerged could possibly be a case of Prisoner’s dilemma.
Now, you may ask what exactly is the Prisoner’s dilemma? It is one aspect of game theory best illustrated by the following example.
Two bandits whom are partners are caught. The police interrogates each of them carefully. Each has two options – cooperate or defect. To cooperate, the bandit does not testify against his partner and keeps quiet. To defect, the bandit testifies against his partner.
There are 4 different permutations as to what the bandits will do. Both bandits cooperate, both defect, bandit 1 coorperates and bandit 2 defects and lastly, bandit 1 defects and bandit 2 coorperates.
Each of the 4 permutation has a different outcome. If both cooperate and not testify against each other, they will each receive a 3 month sentence for a minor offence. If one cooperates and the other defects, the one who coorperates receives a 2 year sentence, and the defector walks away scot-free. If both defect, each will receive a 1 year sentence. Each of this outcome is considered a pay-off and can be tabulated in what is known as a pay-off matrix.
If we assume both bandits are rational beings, it is possible for each to consider the defect option, hoping his partner cooperates. In that way, each hopes to walk free.
If we apply Prisoner’s dilemma back to how my dear friend rationalises his voting decision, we can see that he is a defector. He reasons that defecting will result in a better pay-off, since he anticipates receiving carrots and perks that serve to induce him to change his voting decision and root for the ruling party.
Opposition politicians are quick to hammer home the point about a better pay-off by voting for them in their speeches to voters. They used the rhetoric of “two MPs for the price for one”, in reference to more dedicated services and perks from their ruling party opponents in a bid to win residents’ votes. This encourages voters to “defect”.
However, the ruling party isn’t sitting idly by either. The tactic is to offer a better pay-off if voters cooperate – upgrading of their wards. Those who do not cooperate will not get their upgrading. The pay-off as the voter perceives is now changed – defecting may result in a lesser pay-off without upgrading.
The Prisoners’ dilemma game played by my friend as well as other voters is only for one round. The reality is that multiple rounds of such games will be played, once every 5 years when we will be due for our General Elections. Multiple rounds of such games are known as iterated Prisoner’s dilemma.
In multiple games, the ones to suffer the most are frequent cooperators whose counterparts are frequent defectors. Imagine when the two bandits are caught in subsequent runs, the same bandit cooperates while his partner defects. He will be serving multiple two year sentences for multiple thefts!
Hence, in multiple games, there are a number of strategies adopted, and one popular one is the tit for tat strategy. In tit for tat, the bandit will cooperate if he was not previously provoked, i.e. in the previous game, his counterpart cooperated. If his counterpart defected previously, it is considered a provocation and in the current round, he will defect.
We can see an example of tit for tat at work from developments within our local political scene. Mr Eric Low, a previous People’s Action Party candidate for Hougang, understood the rhetoric about voting for opposition and getting two MPs for the price of one.
Low stopped certain services within the ward like the weekly meet-the-people sessions and breakfasts for the senior citizens after he lost the Hougang contest with a 37% margin. He was quoted as saying,”I’d be a real goondu to keep offering services for the opposition’s benefit.” He noted that such activities have to be considered in light of whether they will be beneficial to him or his opponents. In other words, he is “defecting”.
Another manifestation of the tit for tat strategy is on the basis of the incumbent party’s performance. The ruling party in the run up to elections before winning the ward may have made certain promises to the voters that could also come in the form of other relevant policies. If they are unable to deliver, it is considered a defect in Prisoner’s dilemma language. If voters apply the tit for tat strategy, they will defect in the second round.
A more forgiving type of tit for tat strategy is tit for two tats. Thus, in the bandits game, when both are caught for the second time, the one who cooperated during the last round does not retailate and defect immediately. He forgives and cooperates. However, if his partner defects for the second time, tit for two tats strategy requires the cooperating bandit to defect in the third occassion.
Therefore, if tit for two tats is applied, the ruling party may choose to be forgiving and continue services to residents and other perks within the wards. However, if residents defect again, the services will be discontinued, meaning the ruling party defects.
Tit for two tats is also applicable to voters. If on the first time round, the party is unable to deliver on their promises and defects, they will forgive once and give the party another chance. If the party delivers on the second try, good on them, otherwise, voters will defect.
Saying that, one round of the Prisoner’s dilemma game at the voting booth has ended. Eyes will be casted on the run up to the next round, and politicians plus voters will be examining what is best for their own interests. Will it be cooperate or defect for political parties and voters the next time round? Your guess is as good as mine.
