APPLICATIONS:
TWO PLAYER GAMES
1
Nationalist Strategy for Ratification of the Constitution
• Background.
– This is Riker’s (1996) argument for why proponents of a strong
national government pushed for quick ratification of the Constitution.
– According to the Constitution, the Constitution would be ratified if 9 of
the 13 states favored it. Each state’s decision would be made by a
state convention of popularly elected delegates.
– Federalists (those who favored the Constitution) generally favored
haste, while the Anti-Federalists (those who opposed the Constitution)
generally favored delay.
– Haste tactics included calling a state convention quickly before
opposition voters could arrive and calling a vote quickly before
conventioneers could arrive. Delay tactics included not attending so
that a quorum would not be met.
2
Nationalist Strategy for Ratification of the Constitution
3
Speed of Ratification
Days between call for
convention and ratification
Proportion voting aye at
first convention.
Delaware
28
1.00
New Jersey
48
1.00
Georgia
66
1.00
Pennsylvania
75
.67
Connecticut
84
.76
Massachusetts
94
.53
South Carolina
127
.67
Maryland
151
.85
New York
156
.53
New Hampshire
190
.55
Virginia
238
.53
North Carolina
715
.31
Rhode Island
820
.08
4
Nationalist Strategy for Ratification of the Constitution
Prospective Losers
Prospective
Winners
Delay
Not
Hasten
pw – c, (1-p)v – k
w, –k
Not
p’w – c, (1-p’)v
w/2, v/2
w benefits to prospective winners from decision in the desired form.
v benefits to prospective losers if no decision or decision favoring losers.
p probability prospective winners win if {haten; delay}.
p’ probability prospective winners win if {not; delay}. Note: p’ < p.
c cost imposed on prospective winner if prospective loser delays.
k cost imposed on prospective loser if prospective winner hastens.
What is the N.E.?
Does this mean prospective
winners will win?
5
Nationalist Strategy for Ratification of the Constitution
• Conclusion.
– This may explain why the Federalists pushed for a quick convention in
Pennsylvania, the Anti-Federalists tried the vanishing quorum, and the
Federalists attempted to have the Antis rounded up.
– What’s interesting is that the size of the costs imposed on the other
actor, c and k respectively, don’t seem to affect the rational strategy to
hasten or delay. This is because the opposition will incur those costs
regardless of what action it takes.
– The reason that the prospective winners (nationalists) had the upper
hand is because environmental variables (momentum after the
Constitutional Convention and control of some state legislatures) were
on their side. In different circumstances, the Anti-Federalists may
have won.
6
Marbury v Madison
• Significance.
– Gives the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
– Rather than analyzing court doctrine, we will analyze the strategic
interaction between the Supreme Court and the Presidency.
7
Marbury v Madison
• Background.
– Constitution does not specify which branch, if any, should have the
power of judicial review.
– Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs
of mandamus (i.e. the power to direct government officials to perform
a particular duty).
– William Marbury is appointed justice of the peace by President Adams
(Federalist), but his Secretary of the State fails to deliver Marbury’s
commission.
– After Jefferson is elected President, Marbury asks James Madison
(Jefferson’s Secretary of State) to commission him. Madison refuses.
– Marbury files a writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court to force
Madison to deliver the commission.
8
Marbury v Madison
• Preferences.
President Jefferson
Writ not issued, judiciary act upheld
Writ not issued, judiciary act unconstitutional
Writ issued, Jefferson disobeys
Commission Marbury without a fight
Writ issued, Marbury commissioned
Chief Justice Marshall
Writ issued, Marbury commissioned
Writ not issued, judiciary act unconstitutional
Commission Marbury without a fight
Writ not issued, judiciary act upheld
Writ issued, Jefferson disobeys
9
Marbury v Madison
J: Jefferson
M: Justice Marshall
J
Not give
commission
M
e
3, 3
d
Give
commission
1, 2
Why doesn’t Marshall
have a fourth action
at his decision node?
c
J
4, 1
Reject court order
2, 0
Comply with court
0, 4
c: issue writ and uphold judiciary act.
d: not issue writ and uphold judiciary act.
e: not issue writ and declare judiciary act unconstitutional.
10
Marbury v Madison
J: Jefferson
M: Justice Marshall
J
Not give
commission
M
e
3, 3
d
Give
commission
1, 2
What
Do
you
is believe
SE? these
payoffs?
c
J
4, 1
Reject court order
2, 0
Comply with court
0, 4
c: issue writ and uphold judiciary act.
d: not issue writ and uphold judiciary act.
e: not issue writ and declare judiciary act unconstitutional.
11
Marbury v Madison
• Decision
– When two laws conflict, judges should decide how to resolve the
conflict.
– The Constitution is superior to any legislation.
– Judges are to interpret what the Constitution means.
• Strategic Behavior
– We have always thought of this as a case where Marshall outfoxed
Jefferson like a “thief in the night,” but perhaps their strategic
interaction lead them to a rational outcome.
12