Finding Our True Political Center - Sawyer, Mike
17,99 €
inkl. MwSt.

Versandfertig in über 4 Wochen
  • Broschiertes Buch

Growing up, my younger brother Kevin and I loved the challenge of designing our own games. He went on to run a war game company. But I had higher aspirations. I thought I could apply these skills in theoretical physics. It turned out that the subject matter was just a bit too intense for me, so I had to settle for more mundane things....like teaching, insurance and finance. After I retired from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage in 2011, I started the blog "Dare to Ask" at topsawyer.com. One of the subjects I covered was ranked choice voting. I began collaborating with a college professor friend of…mehr

Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
Produktbeschreibung
Growing up, my younger brother Kevin and I loved the challenge of designing our own games. He went on to run a war game company. But I had higher aspirations. I thought I could apply these skills in theoretical physics. It turned out that the subject matter was just a bit too intense for me, so I had to settle for more mundane things....like teaching, insurance and finance. After I retired from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage in 2011, I started the blog "Dare to Ask" at topsawyer.com. One of the subjects I covered was ranked choice voting. I began collaborating with a college professor friend of mine; and I came to realize that this too, was a "game theory" problem, more consequential than board games, more down to earth than theoretical physics, but challenging in its own way.
Autorenporträt
Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interaction among rational decision-makers. Game theory problems are not easily summed up in neat little packages (E = mc2). They involve the uncertainty of human behavior, strategic responses, and just too many elusive variables. Now when Kevin designed his game "Napoleon's Wheel", historical accuracy dictated that the odds would favor Napoleon; but it was still a zero-sum game, meaning it would end with winners and losers.... no ties, no compromises, no peace negotiations. That's pretty much the way everyone from mathematicians to politicians to voters think about voting algorithms. No one considered designing outcomes where everyone comes out ahead. A better model is economics where despite some concessions, everyone gains from the trade-offs. As extreme polarization paralyzes the American political landscape, I would be remiss not to tell the story of how designer algorithms can change that terrain (the field of candidates) so the pieces and the players align to form the better outcomes for the electorate as a whole, the story of "inclusive voting."