@Debt Ceiling: Get What You Want By Doing the Opposite @PolicyMic | Jordan Wolf

@Debt Ceiling: Get What You Want By Doing the Opposite

10 Comments
PolicyMic

Game theory can influence how you get what you want in the debt ceiling debate.

Today President Barack Obama sent a tweet asking the American public to call, email, or tweet their members of Congress about the debt ceiling negotiation. His tweet was open-ended and was not directed at any particular party. He just asked the public to pressure their representatives to do something on the debt ceiling.

But how exactly should you apply pressure and what should you ask for? It seems obvious right? Just tweet your representative and explain what bill you favor. 

Wrong.

In this situation, the more obvious approach may not be best. In economics, game theorists have noted that there are situations when moving second is best. The competition between the two debt-ceiling bills may be one of these situations. If so, the best way to get what you want is to do the opposite.

Here is how the second-mover advantage applies in this case. If the House proposes a bill first, then the Senate can delay and then reject it, leaving its own plan as the only available option as time runs out. House members will be in the position of having to accept the Senate proposal, else be held responsible for the fiscal detonation of the country.

The same applies in the other direction. If the House can feign paralysis, then it might be able to provoke the Senate to go first out of panic, and then reject the Senate's version and propose its own at the last second. In fact, in light of this order-of-votes issue, I wonder if any of the House Republicans are signaling their disapproval of the Boehner bill in order to delay the vote and thus force the Senate to move first out of fear that no other solutions will emerge.

The bottom line is that when a cataclysmic deadline looms, you want your bill to be the last remaining solution, not the first option proposed.

Actual representatives probably aren't thinking this deeply, but you should. 

What the second mover advantage suggests is that there is a paradox in how support for one bill or another will translate into the chances of that bill being passed. If you support the Reid plan, you should try to gather support for the Boehner plan, and if you support the Boehner plan, you should try to undermine support for it. The plan that moves first has a big disadvantage, and so just pushing blindly for what you want is likely to set in motion a choice situation that ultimately disfavors your preferred option.

One caveat of course is that this strategy is only for the short term and the question of when to switch strategies is a delicate one. To leverage the dynamics of a second mover advantage, one has to be sure that there is still time to get one's preferred bill voted on after the rival bill is rejected. So, on Monday night, it would no longer be smart to try and support the Boehner plan in order to get the Reid plan, because there would be no time for the Senate to pass its own plan before the deadline ran out.

If you're going to tweet at your representative, think hard about the strategic situation, and even if you're just on the sidelines watching, consider the wisdom of rooting for the opposite bill, for now.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

10 Comments

Sign up to join the discussion

Reply to this article
view profile

Jordan Wolf

My training is partially in philosophy and I'm interested in democratic theory, but more practically, I like thinking about media sophistica...

Most Mic'd Responses

weekly-winner-headshot-fpo

Paul Anderson

Very interesting analysis. The biggest problem (as I see it) is that this is a three party negotiation. You have Democrats, Republicans, and the Tea Party. While the Democratic and Republican establishment debate about how to AVOID default (with Republicans aiming to shrink the government and Democrats trying to shrink the deficit), the Tea Party position seems to be a mix of favoring default and denying the existence of default. Barney Frank put it best in 2009: "It's like debating with a dining room table." Do game theorists have a model for debating with furniture? Not sure.

Watch the PolicyMic Video Join PolicyMic

The Discussion

Close All Threads

Very interesting analysis. The biggest problem (as I see it) is that this is a three party negotiation. You have Democrats, Republicans, and the Tea Party. While the Democratic and Republican establishment debate about how to AVOID default (with Republicans aiming to shrink the government and Democrats trying to shrink the deficit), the Tea Party position seems to be a mix of favoring default and denying the existence of default. Barney Frank put it best in 2009: "It's like debating with a dining room table." Do game theorists have a model for debating with furniture? Not sure.

char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • William Bauer 7 months ago This is very true! Often, it seems ...

This is very true! Often, it seems that the Tea Party is woefully out of touch with global economic realities. The US no longer enjoys the full confidence of investors as it once did and those that hold its debt have been rattled by the ever increasing fiscal crisis in Euro-Med countries, so treading carefully is the name of the game. Upsetting global financial markets with a wholly unecessary default is not what the TP should be aiming for.

char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

This is a bit like trying to control chaos. It is a bad idea. The whole situation seems tactical and well-planned in theory, but think about how this affects people in the real world. The markets have already threatened a downgrade. If people were really paying attention to this, the tea party members would be history.

char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • Jordan Wolf 7 months ago Yea, things can get out of control ...

Yea, things can get out of control in these situations very quickly. Still, you have to try and act on what you think is the most strategic course of action, and in some cases, that might mean feigning approval of something to influence the order in which choices are made. There are caveats to my strategy, and I mentioned one, and there are probably others like: you need to be sure that your side can get ITS votes under crunch time. We'll see with the Reid bill tonight.

char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I think this is an interesting article, and actually do think it is playing out in Washington just maybe nor the way you describe here. I think with Boehner having so much issue with getting the votes for his plan, it gives the Reid plan an advantage. Boehner is going to keep tweaking his bill trying to gain the support for it, while Reid just waits. At some point, there will be no more time for the Boehner plan and the Reid plan will have to move forward. I think that Dems will be able to get some repubs over to support their plan. There is not a ton of difference between the two plans now other than needing a second vote 6 months from now. So even if the Boehner plan never gets voted on, the Reid plan still benefits from the second mover position.

char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

5 Replies

  • Jordan Wolf 7 months ago Yea this is a good point. That sinc...

  • Michael De Los Santos 7 months ago At some point, the republicans will...

  • Jordan Wolf 7 months ago True, that makes it very seductive....

Yea this is a good point. That since the Reid plan has the vote in its own chambers, its all set no matter what happens. If the Boehner plan can't get passed, then Reid wins. If Boehner goes first, Reid wins. Either way, Reid just needs to wait patiently.

char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

At some point, the republicans will realize they won this debate, because even the Reid plan has no means to increase revenue. Another reason, I think at the last minute some republicans will be convinced to move over.

char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

True, that makes it very seductive. I wonder if Republicans though like the shorter term raise for the debt ceiling because the hope is to play this whole game again before the election. Politically minded Republicans may find that possibility attractive, but I doubt they'll put their own political careers on the line just to injure Obama (or just to have the chance to injure him).

char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I do think that is why they like the shorter term raise. They have been saying that Obama wants the long term raise to protect him from making a hard decision while he is campaigning. I think some would be willing to put their own careers on the line, but only because they know enough people will vote to make the raise that it won't matter. The raise will happen and people will forget they voted against it. Just like Senator Obama voted against the last debt ceiling raise, no one remembered or cared because it ultimately was still raised.

char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Jordan - I think the problem is that we often imagine our politicians as people who have long term plans and strategies. They really don't. They're just overworked people who are trying to muddle through - just like us! And most of their actions are informed by the advice of inexperienced 20-something aides. While Machiavellian tactics are as old as human beings, we have yet to perfect the science of public opinion manipulation in a democracy. Even when politicians create a plan, there's no guarantee that it's a politically wise plan. Understanding the plan and motivations behind their actions is helpful, but I often try to start from the assumption that there is no plan.

char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
Join PolicyMic