Fadli Zon Suddenly Tweets Zero Sum Game, What Does It Mean?

JAKARTA - Member of Commission I DPR RI Fadli Zon suddenly tweeted 'zero sum game' on his official Twitter account, @fadlizon, Monday, March 8. It is not explained in detail what the context to the meaning of this tweet is.

So, instead of confusion, VOI will provide a definition of Fadli Zon's tweet, according to Muhammad Feriady, a lecturer at Semarang State University (Unnes).

Zero Sum Game was first published in the 1944 book Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by John Von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstrern.

Zero sum game is a condition that illustrates the total profit and loss of all participants in a game is Zero. This means that the advantages that a player has or gets come from the losses suffered by other players.

This certainly exists in a game, but is this zero sum game appropriate if it occurs in a contest that is said to be aimed at the interests of the nation and state?

Questioning about the fight at the grassroots by sympathizers supporting the candidate pairs participating in the election is of course a detrimental thing if there is a zero sum game condition in it. Why not, supporters of "the loser" will be bullied out and supporters of "the winner" seem to be the owner of the country.

In the next round, it is the turn of the supporters of "the loser" to become all-knowing critics and the supporters of "the winner" to become the object of awry.

The competition played by the elites seemed to place the community as war soldiers with various massive movements on social media and even the real world, while the elites were busy enjoying it.

A contest that ends like a gambling game at a poker table with zero sum games in it, even though the essence of this process is for the benefit of the nation and state.

Non Zero Sum Game

The next question is, is it possible that the process that has been rolling since 2014 even since the first reformation that has always put people's soldiers in this battle will end with the Non Zero sum game (the opposite of Zero Sum Game)?

Could it be that all the supporters of the contestants become a win-win group? A similar question must be ringing in the minds of many people who are already too saturated with various battles between supporters and sympathizers who even go beyond their rational limits.

In Game Theory, the actual conditions that occur do not have to be Zero Sum Game, it can also apply to Non Zero Sum Games with win-win or lose-lose solutions. This situation will certainly apply with the assumption that the voter group here is the person playing the game.

We think of them as a company that sets a strategy in the market. They are free to determine what kind of leader criteria are appropriate for them. This situation is different from the current reality where most voters and sympathizers have become a market that irrationalized their vote.

Another method in game theory can explain this win-win solution condition, one of which is the Nash equilibrium which was popularized by John Nash in 1950. This theory explains that one player will formulate a strategy based on a strategy carried out by the opposing player.

The problem is that we are faced with our ignorance of the opposing players' wishes, in Game Theory it is called the Prisoners dilemma. Likewise, the supporters and sympathizers of candidate pairs do not really know what is important and wants by other supporters and sympathizers.

That's why Nash says that the Nash Equilibrium is only suitable for short-term analysis, in the long run, should gamers cooperate. This is strongly supported by other Nobel laureates such as Thomas C Schelling and Robert Aumann.

At the next stage in Game Theory is the Enforcing a Cartel method, where in the duopolistic market companies can set their own prices, then price competition occurs. It would be safe if they fixed the price according to the agreement and made as much profit as possible.

Likewise, with supporters and sympathizers, it would be nice if they sat down together and then discussed the criteria for the ideal candidate leader according to them and the mandatory requirements that must be had. When there is contestation and the two candidates they are fighting for, they don't need to compete physically and mentally, because whoever is the winner is basically the same.

This is because the criteria for the candidates they defend have been agreed upon the same. If this can be implemented, of course, who will be the winner in the contestation will be accepted by all. Likewise, those who lose the contest will feel that they are winners together from the results.

In the view expressed by the author, ideally, the agreements on the criteria for candidates to be elected along with the conditions that must be possessed are substantive matters for each of the supporters.

However, just like in Game Theory, in analyzing oligopoly market behavior, the most important condition is that all players in this game take rational actions. The question that cannot be answered at this time is whether our supporters and sympathizers, even ourselves, are people who think rationally in elections?