In Mario Kart,
the further behind the pack you are, the better the power-ups you get
Features like this are called "Catch-up mechanics"
and, used correctly, they can be a great way to increase and maintain the drama of a competitive game.
When applied too heavily though,
catch-up mechanics can mess with the games heuristics to the point that
for example:players may actively avoid trying to get the lead for much of the race.
So, do catch-up mechanics exist in the political game of elections?
If elections did have strong catch-up mechanics
We would expect to see a lot of closed elections
and the candidate who is behind would usually be narrowing the gap at the end.
Well, that pretty much defines the experience of most US presidential elections in recent memory.
The last one was so close that,
due to the Electoral College, the candidate with fewer votes won.
You can't get much closer than that.
So it is pretty clear that at least in presidential elections
there are strong catch-up mechanics at work.
But what are they
and does it matter?
Now, before we get into the weeds here,
It is important to note:
catch-up mechanics aren't the same thing as tactics
Which may help the player who is falling behind,
like the onside kick in football.
Those tactics are just a player's approach to their situation;
the heuristic they may temporarily deploy in an attempt to close the gap.
Catch-up mechanics, on the other hand,
are built into the game.
They structurally give advantages to the losing player.
For example:
say a player does something good and scores two points
putting them in the lead,
but then, the next time they do an equally good thing, because they are ahead,
they only score one point.
That would be a clear catch up mechanic making sure that the leader doesn't run away with an impossible lead.
So, now that we know how these mechanics work,
let's look at a few of the more interesting ketchup features built into the U.S. Election system.
First is the press:
during elections while candidates
play their game of getting the most votes,
the press is playing its own orthogonal game of get the most ratings
where they compete for ad dollars and viewers.
The best way to attract both is with an exciting story
and a close election will get way more viewers than a landslide:
even in today's hyper partisan press environment,
there is a need for an election to be exciting to attract viewers
and the press has a profound effect on voters:
They can draw widespread attention to the leading candidates negative aspects
or the losing candidates positive aspects,
swaying public opinion in a way that is very powerful and should not be underestimated. And,
and luckily for the press,
the candidate who is behind in the polls
generally throws out some shocking accusations late in the election cycle,
making for some pretty hot stories as the campaign season approaches its finale.
Furthermore, if we look at more highly polarized news outlets like MSNBC or Fox,
we find that they build ideological walls around their viewers,
making those voters less and less likely to even hear bad news about their candidates.
This makes a whole lot of voters
essentially unwinnable by the other side.
These gimme votes prevent any candidates elite from becoming so large as to be insurmountable
this makes the press a pretty clear and Significant catch up mechanic
another catch up mechanic, third parties
when third parties enter elections
weird stuff starts to happen
and more often than not they pull more votes away from the candidate who is ahead
than the losing candidate.
So third parties are definitely a catch-up mechanic - money is a catch-up mechanic too
Money is a catchup mechanic also
there's a big argument over how much impact money really has on elections.
But one thing we can say for sure
Is that it is better to have it than to not have it
it's also safe to say that
any feature which encourages more money to be given to the candidate who is behind
can be thought of as a catch-up mechanic
and that happens in two ways.
First is both sides money
many interest groups take a very long view with their donations
these groups give money to both sides
ensuring that no matter who wins they will have some influence
and if the political winds
happen to change next election well,
Well, then they will have a history of investing in that side too.
The financial sector is well known for this tactic
They might give more money to one side or the other
but you can always find financial sector donation going to both parties
But there's also issue money
which is money donated to a candidate simply because they have taken a strong stance on a particular issue
You could be losing the election by 30 points
But the NRA will still give you money
If you are the more pro-gun candidate
and that money is not being given in the belief that it'll help you win
It's being given to send a message to the eventual winner
No matter who that winner is
that the NRA will not lie down on their key issues
Yet another form of catch-up mechanics is the low information voters
in the game show Jeopardy
Each round is worth more points than the previous one
giving the player who is falling behind some hope of closing the gap
this increase of randomness is definitely a catch-up mechanic,
even though it also gives the player who is winning an equal chance of increasing their lead further
in politics
There's a similar structure going on with low information swing voters now
Now, the term low information voters is not a comment about intelligence
It defines voters who just don't spend their days consuming news about political issues
These voters don't really pay attention until the end of our outrageously long campaign seasons
And they don't make their voting decision based on the complex policy issues
But on things like likability
a single issue that they really care about
or late-breaking news
These late-breaking victory points are just like Final Jeopardy
They represent a massive catch-up opportunity
now here is why all of this is important
in the last episode, we talked about wind charts
which reflect the candidates chances of winning at any given point in the game
Here is what a wind chart looks like to the casual observer when a game has strong catch-up mechanics in place
Just look at all those spikes.
This game is all over the place
The lead is changing hands over and over
But if you're one of the experts playing this game
Then you see this very differently
to the expert the real wind chart for this game would look like this
Strategy and heuristics are planned by knowing where you are on a win chart
but in a game with strong catch up opportunity
Experts know that they are never actually very far ahead or behind
the lead can change so quickly and frequently they might as well be neck-and-neck with their opponent
In addition players who understand the games catch-up mechanics can take advantage of them
maximizing or minimizing their effects
just like that player who lags behind in Mario Kart in hopes of getting a better powerup
For example
in most US presidential elections
you can pretty much count on the candidate who believes they are currently losing to launch over-the-top
fear based ads in the last week
Those ads are designed to maximise the catch-up opportunity with late breaking low information voters
fear is always a powerful motivator
and those voters don't have the background knowledge to know if the fear being pushed in those ads is justified
there have also been cases of shadow campaigns being deployed in past elections.
These are scenarios where the underdog campaign offers hidden supports to a third party candidate
inducing them to run and hopefully
Siphon off some votes from the leader
my overall point here Is that
knowing why candidates do what they do will allow us to more accurately parse truth.
Making us more effective and informed participants in this process
and if you desire to work on a campaign or run for office yourself
Well knowing these catch-up mechanics could end up being just as important
as your winning ideas.
See you next time