In the 2012 US Presidential election it is estimated that $7.4 billion was spent on TV and radio advertising. All this spending, however, may have had little effect on the outcome of the election. As...

In the 2012 US Presidential election it is estimated that $7.4 billion was spent on TV and radio advertising. All this spending, however, may have had little effect on the outcome of the election. As The Economist (2012) noted: ‘Vast sums have been spent on TV advertising, mostly cancelling each other out’. An expert commentator, Lynn Vavreck from UCLA, describes the election spending as a ‘stalemate’; arguing that the Presidential candidates were mainly spending in order to neutralise the effects of their opponent’s advertising. a How could you represent as a simultaneous game the choices made by Presidential candidates about the amounts of advertising to support their campaigns? b How would you describe the pay-offs from alternative amounts of advertising so that the predicted outcome is for both candidates to spend large amounts on advertising? c Can this strategic situation where Presidential candidates make choices of amounts of advertising be described as a prisoners’ dilemma game?