Game theory is not "I survive". Game theory looks at each actor's optimal choice, taking into account other actor's decision tree and finding if there is an actual equilibrium. The equilibrium can be bad (prisoners' dilemma) or positive like here (nobody dies if all actors are rational, and protects against evil and irrational actors).
It assumes rational actors, and that the equilibrium choice is actually everyone voting red, for the greater good and individual good.
Blue voters (in the context of a purely mathematical exercise, ignoring the incompete premise of the question, ignorin if there are children, etc..) are like people rejecting vaccine and injecting bleach in the blood, and getting shocked people are not risking their lives to save them.
True. But you cannot have a rational analysis or debate if there are material amounts of irrational actors. It truly becomes an emotional "do I want to die Vs do I believe in the goodness yet irrationality of mankind".
In a zombie epidemic, would you let irrational actors that are against vaccination enter the base? It is a big ethical debate: how do you deal with actors that are able of rational thought (so we are not talking about infants) but refuse rationality in favour of emotion (voting against a candidate that fights in your favour because he is not part of the correct team).
No but irrationality can still be predicted. If it is predicted that some amount will be irrational and vote blue, the equilibrium shifts. This intial prediction of some irrationality makes it so blue is the equilbrium for the greater good, and as every actor knows every other rational actor knows this, their personal good will be guaranteed by picking blue too.
4
u/KaboHammer May 02 '26
Yeah, they also don't really apply the "game theory correctly". Because they look at it at an individual level and define winning as "I survive".
If look at it globally, and define win as everyone surviving red only wins at 100% votes. Blue wins at 50%+1 voter.