[IP] more on Nader's at it again

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: jordan pollack <pollack@brandeis.edu>
Date: February 19, 2007 9:03:46 AM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Nader's at it again

The problem is that the founder's idealistic belief that competition  
prevents monopoly of power (e.g. royalty) was wrong.  Game theory  
proved that competitors always have Nash equilibrium strategies. In  
fact the Nash was originally modeled by Cournot's  Duopoly model in  
the late 1800's, which was still a century after the fact.  The two  
parties are "firms" which control the markets for candidates, seats,  
and districts, eand tune and channel tax revenues, bribes, and  
propaganda (political advertising) to maximize their market share by  
assembling constitutent blocs. They collude to exclude competitors.

When constituents split off to mount a third party candidate, whether  
Wallace, Perot, Jackson, or Nader, it merely weakens the affiliated  
firm, and that constituency (e.g. environmentalists) are punished. So  
the best play for any constituency is to have dual loyalties to  
prosper no matter which party is in ascendance.

Until we have a serious look at these game dynamics and modeling  
political firms, and build a provable model which gets implemented as  
a people's constitutional amendment, we are a screwed nation with a  
monopoly government, and guys like Nader only make things worse.    
While term limits, proportional voting, reforms of the electoral  
college, etc, are attempts, I havent' seen proof that they will break  
the duopoly.

Jordan

--
Professor Jordan B. Pollack   Dynamic & Evolution Machine Org
Computer Science Department   FaxPhone/Lab: 781-736-2713/3366
MS018,  Brandeis University   http://www.demo.cs.brandeis.edu
Waltham Massachusetts 02454   e-mail: pollack-at-brandeis.edu
Multiplayer Education Games   FOR FREE! http://www.beeweb.org






-------------------------------------------