Game Theory with Three Players
Recall from last week that the political and electoral processes in
America may be understood fairly well in terms of game theory with the
following three players: 1) the Electorate (E); 2) the Democratic Party (D);
and 3) the Republican Party (R). In this
case, each player can choose to either cooperate with, or compete against, one
or both of the other two players.
Recall also that in a game with three players, there are three different ways to play “Two against One.” 1) E + D against R; 2) E + R against D; and 3) D + R against E.
Finally, recall that “Two against One” can be played at the National Level, the State Level, or any level!
Examples of the first two types of “Two against One” behavior
[E + D against R, and E + R against D] are familiar to everyone, especially at
the National Level. In recent history
they have occurred spectacularly in mid-term elections in the sixth year of
two-term American presidents.
E + D against R - on the National
Level
In the midterm elections on November 7, 2006, the sixth year of George
W. Bush’s tenure as president, the Electorate sided powerfully with the
Democrats at the expense of the Republicans.
On the day before the election, the Republicans held majorities in both
the House and Senate. By the day after
the election, the Electorate had granted Democrats control of both the House
and the Senate.
E + R against D - on the National
Level
In the midterm elections of November 4, 2014, the sixth year of Barrack
H. Obama’s tenure as president, the Electorate sided powerfully with the
Republicans at the expense of the Democrats.
On the day before the election, the Democrats held a majority in the
Senate while the Republicans held the House.
By the day after the election, the Electorate had granted Republicans
control of both chambers.
D + R against E - on the National
Level
Example 1- The Senate Makes Its Own Rules
Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitutions provides in part as
follows: “Each House may
determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
This provision empowered the Senate to institute all of its rules, including its “supermajority” rule for overcoming filibusters. Under that rule until recently, stopping debate and allowing a vote on nominations to proceed to an up or down vote required the agreement of 60—not 51—of 100 senators. On November 21, 2013, the U.S. Senate exercised a limited “nuclear option” that did away with the 60-vote majority needed to cut off debate—but only for federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments. The rule change does not apply to Supreme Court nominations or to legislation.
Question: Which of the three players cited above benefit from the Senate “supermajority” rule?
Answer: The primary beneficiaries of the Senate “supermajority” rule are the Senators themselves—from both parties. The rule is a minor inconvenience to the Senators whose party controls the Senate, because it slows down their ability to do things as quickly as they might like; but at the same time, it is a welcome convenience to the Senators whose party is in the minority, because it allows them to retain some power and relevance despite being in the minority. Since senators tend to remain in office for long periods and can expect to occasionally be in the minority, the “supermajority” rule seems to benefit members of both political parties while not providing much benefit to the voters who elected them.
Example 2 - How Congress Puts Itself Above the Law
The history of Congress
exempting itself from the laws it imposes on everyone else¹ is a sordid
one. And the secrecy with which our
elected officials conduct themselves before their self-exemptions become an
embarrassing media matter is often revealed by that very same media attention.
But the devious behavior of Congress after its self-exemptions receive intense media attention reveals the degree of duplicity of which large groups of elected officials are capable when apparently “caught” and going through the motions of “taking action” to remedy the sins of their earlier self-exemptions.
It is a fact that Congress exempted itself from the provisions of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which made employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin illegal. As a result, Congressional employees could be discriminated against or sexually harassed with legal impunity!
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 set out to reform the original 1964 Civil Rights Act, but by the time of its final passage, the original 1964 exemption for Congress remained in place. Instead, Congress enacted a self-policing system in which it would investigate its own transgressions! That preposterous arrangement remained in place until the passage of the Congressional Accountability Act in 1995, which finally made Congress subject to all workplace laws and regulations.
Example 3: How Congress Quietly Overhauled Its Insider-Trading Law
Insider trading—buying or
selling stocks based on insider information not available to the general public—has
been illegal in America since the 1930s, but members of Congress were exempt
from that law until President Obama signed the Stop Trading on Congressional
Knowledge (STOCK) Act. This law banned
insider trading by lawmakers and their staffs.
However, prior to enactment of this law, insider trading by lawmakers
and their staffs was perfectly legal, was engaged in for many years, and accounts
perhaps for the large number of elected officials who have become millionaires²
in Washington, D.C.
The Stock
Act was signed into law with great public fanfare on April 4, 2012. But one
year later on April 15, 2013, according to National Public Radio,³ “Congress
moved to undo large parts” of the Stock Act.
And
confirming the near-total secrecy surrounding this undoing of the Stock Act,
“…when the president signed a bill reversing big pieces of the law, the emailed
announcement was one sentence long.
There was no fanfare last week either, when the Senate and then the
House passed the bill in largely empty chambers using a fast-track procedure
known as unanimous consent.”
Note that the Democrat controlled Senate, Republican held House, and
Democratic President all worked together to reverse large parts of the Stock
Act, mostly in secret, and to the detriment of the Electorate.
To be
continued. ¹
² http://ballotpedia.org/Changes_in_Net_Worth_of_U.S._Senators_and_Representatives_(Personal_Gain_Index)
³ http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law.
No comments:
Post a Comment