Close, but no cigar

Washington Post article claims that the supposedly horrible contest for the Democratic presidential nomination illustrates "the tragedy of the commons":

Individuals embroiled in similar dilemmas find them impossible to solve on their own, because they are confronted by a Hobson's Choice: Act selfishly and cause collective disaster, or act altruistically and aid someone else who is acting selfishly. Either way, selfishness wins.

"The way the system is set up, the more-selfish person has a higher probability of winning," social psychologist W. Keith Campbell said of the Democratic primary. "You end up with the more narcissistic, belligerent candidate."

Yes, but this problem is well understood and usually groups of people evolve norms or establish institutions to address the problem. It's only because the Democratic Party has arrogantly continued to tinker endlessly with their nominating rules in pursuit of "fairness" that it faces this problem today. 

Comments

[JorgXMcKie]

The Democrats and their rules remind me of something my grandfather used to say. "If you tinker with anything long enough, you'll break it."

[Fredex]

I've only seen "tragedy of the commons" invoked by people who do not understand how a commons works.

[Eric Grant]

The comparison to the commons is somewhat apt; the reasons in the article may not be. I am not convinced that the competition will result in tragedy; historically, bitter political feuds within either party end in conciliation and are quickly forgotten when the nominee is chosen and the election rolls around.

[Eric Grant]

The comparison to the commons is somewhat apt; the reasons in the article may not be. I am not convinced that the competition will result in tragedy; historically, bitter political feuds within either party end in conciliation and are quickly forgotten when the nominee is chosen and the election rolls around.

[jorod]

Socialism by any other name. In the end, the party bosses decide on the final rules.