Democracy, the game: My latest video-game column for Wired News

Wired News just published my latest video-game column, and this one compares the design of a video game to the design of American democracy. And vice versa!

A copy is free online at Wired’s site, and an archival copy is below:

The Game of Politics Is Ready for Its Upgrade
by Clive Thompson

I won the White House for Barack Obama last week. And for John McCain, too!

I was playing The Political Machine 2008, this year’s big sim-election title, and had a blast slinging mud and pandering. Playing as Obama, I stormed around the coasts, promising clean coal and running ads blasting McCain for supporting the war, and soon I was kicking back in the Oval Office. Playing as McCain, I played precisely the opposite cards in the red heartland, and won that race as well.

And as I turned off the computer, I thought — wow, you could regard The Political Machine as the supreme indictment of American Democracy. Because for all its cartoony graphics, the electioneering feels quite realistic. Almost too realistic. And you wind up worrying: Is real-life politics just a game, too?

As we move ever closer to Nov. 4, pundits constantly complain that the presidential campaign has become a farce of scorekeeping — with the candidates, media and consultants treating it merely as a horse race. Why aren’t we talking about issues? they moan. Isn’t democracy supposed to be about more than just pandering to the crowd?

In one sense, the pundits are completely right. There’s something enormously depressing about watching the electioneering devolve into such nanoscale pettiness as the “lipstick on a pig” argument, or the choruses of “drill, baby, drill.” We’re facing down some of the hugest social crises in a generation — climate change, a worldwide economic meltdown — yet we’re faced with campaigns dominated by who’s racking up more daily points: Who attacked? Who deflected? Modern political campaigns even borrow directly from the linguistics of game-playing: The candidates are engaged in a “horse race.”

But let me suggest another way to look at it. Maybe American democracy really is a game — and maybe that’s the best thing about it.

What, after all, is a game? A game is a set of rules that gives players a set of goals but also constrains their behavior in striving for those goals; it architects their behavior in an interesting and hopefully enjoyable way. A really well-designed game is “balanced” and self-correcting. In a game of pool, for example, if you take an early lead by sinking a ton of balls, you quickly discover that — whoops — the game gets harder because your opponents’ balls block all your shots. In MMOs like World of Warcraft, different classes of players do different things; as a result, no one class can run roughshod over all others.

In comparison, what’s a democracy? Much like a game, it’s just a bunch of rules — written down on a piece of paper (er, a “constitution”) — that constrain everyone’s behavior in an attempt to architect a productive, happy and peaceful polity. And, again like a game, if it’s well-designed, it’s self-correcting.

One reason to admire the U.S. democratic system is its neat balance of power. On paper, anyway, the branches of government — executive, legislative and judicial — are co-equal, so each can prevent the others from causing too much mischief. When it comes to elections, some sparsely populated states were weighted higher — given extra senators and congressmen or Electoral College votes so that, again in theory, they wouldn’t be run roughshod over. American democracy is strikingly gamelike in its design.

Yet the thing is, the game is clearly in need of a redesign. When you play Political Machine, you quickly realize — much as real-world candidates do — that you’re mostly worried about the small handful of vote-rich “swing” states, like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. I won even though I almost completely ignored population-rich New York, California and Texas.

This is, of course, because of the superweird Electoral College system. It’s a design choice that made a lot of sense 200 years ago, but makes increasingly less sense as time goes on and America becomes more of an urban, coastal country. The software of American democracy was designed to run on hardware — a particular population distribution — that no longer exists.

If American democracy actually were a game, like Halo, players would call it unbalanced — and cry out for a solution. Or to put it another way: The software of U.S. democracy needs a patch. It needs some tweaks that force politicians to consider the whole map.

Plenty of electoral thinkers have suggested reweighting the Electoral College, or maybe even scrapping it. Assuming this were politically possible, it would require some sober meditation on design. For example, to ensure that low-population states don’t get completely overlooked politically in the new regime, you might want to include new safeguards for them — such as a couple extra senators or representatives.

Even so, you’d want to be very, very careful as you proceeded. As any videogame designer knows, changing even one tiny part of a system — making the rifles more lethal in Call of Duty, or gravity slightly more powerful in a racing game — can send the entire thing spiraling into chaos. The same goes with democracy, in spades.

But the point is, thinking about American democracy as a game is not necessarily a bad thing. Quite the contrary: It might be the best way to fix it.


blog comments powered by Disqus

Search This Site


Bio:

I'm Clive Thompson, the author of Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds for the Better (Penguin Press). You can order the book now at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Powells, Indiebound, or through your local bookstore! I'm also a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and a columnist for Wired magazine. Email is here or ping me via the antiquated form of AOL IM (pomeranian99).

More of Me

Twitter
Tumblr

Recent Comments

Collision Detection: A Blog by Clive Thompson