Study

By coincidence, my friend VW also talked about our recent election in his blog yesterday. (See http://vwswong.blogspot.com/2011/12/election.html) He rightly pointed out that candidates were not hiding their choice from us, but from the future winner.

I read VW's blog on my way to the hospital. During that 20-minute bus trip, when I came to think of it, the problem is more complicated than I suspect.

To begin with, the risk of offending the future CE, if you happen to support the wrong side, was actually minimal - and, to balance out, there is always the potential benefit of supporting the correct one early. (It brings the problem to another level of discussion: What is the purpose of running for the Election Subcommittee? Is choosing the future CE an end, or is it for future personal benefit?)

Alas, let's better focus on science. Say, amongst that 80 candidates, if one comes out and declare which side he supports, would that give him an edge to win? I presume yes, if there are sufficient number of people who have make up their mind already. In that case, by the game theory, declaring support to the obviously favorable side (be it the pig or the wolf) would become the dominant strategy, and you would expect every candidate to come out and declare the same. By then, the few candidates who refuse to declare their intention would not survive; it doesn't really matter to whom we cast our vote, and there is actually very little glory to become elected.

This is true democracy.

PS. When the bus came out from the Tate's Cairn Tunnel, I came to the conclusion that it might be a good idea to test my hypothesis and run for the election next time with the dominant strategy.

But, alas, no, thank you. I am not that devoted to science.