|
In a paper by Merolla, Munger, and Tofias of Duke University, the 2000 Presidential Election was analyzed to determine
whether candidate actions and election outcomes were best modeled by Lotto, Blotto, or Frontrunner.
- If the election was best modeled by Lotto, then candidates' actions are irrelevant to the outcome of the "game" (election),
because it is all a matter of "lottery" luck.
- If the election was best modeled by Blotto, then candidates' allocations of resources does have an effect on the
outcome.
- In a frontrunner case, one candidate has such a large advantage at the start of the contest that nothing else matters!
The authors were able to accurately predict, in all but four states, the results based solely on initial poll positions
and net spending within those states.
The 2000 election is a classic Blotto game in the sense that a winning strategy is not apparent during the game, only after.
They write, "We have found that the 2000 election resembles a Blotto game, since there are many alternative strategies, or
allocations of resources across states that the Gore campaign could have chosen in order to win the election" (Merolla 18).
As always, the loser feels he/she made a critical mistake. "But it is the nature of Blotto contests that someone always
wins, and someone always loses, yet no ex ante mistake need to have occured" (20).
CONGRESSIONAL RACES
Blotto also models partisan congressional races, with the players being the two major parties. The number of fronts
are the individual congressional districts, with a majority of districts won resulting in a payoff of political authority.
Parties will allocate resources to the competitive races, and cede races where they are unlikely to win. In this winner-take-all
system, the number of votes does not matter on the macro level; only the number of races won matters.
|
