Harvard Negotiation Law Review

  • Home
  • Scholarly Articles
    • Articles
    • HNLR Online Articles
  • Submissions Information for Authors
  • Student Note Competition
    • 2022 – 2023 Student Note Competition
    • 2020-2021 Student Note Competition Winner
  • Symposiums
    • Symposium 2022
    • Symposium 2020
    • Symposium 2019
    • Symposium 2017 (Fall)
    • Symposium 2017 (Spring)
    • Symposium 2016
    • Symposium 2015
    • Symposium 2014
    • Symposium 2013
    • Symposium 2012
    • Symposium 2011
    • Symposium 2010
  • Contact
  • Executive Board
  • Subscriptions
  • Join HNLR – Spring 2023 Subcite

Is Voting for Santorum Below a Voter’s Reservation Value?

An able negotiator knows that a crucial step in entering any negotiation is understanding when to break off negotiations i.e., knowing your BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). To discover your BATNA, you must first determine your reservation value. Your reservation value is the lowest value at which you would consider the negotiation worthwhile. Once you have determined your reservation value you must  establish all possible alternatives to the negotiation. Finally, at any point during the negotiation, you can compare your reservation value to your possible alternatives and readily determine your best alternative, or your BATNA.

These are among the basic principles of negotiation, but they are not limited to negotiation. These are principles that can be applied to most decisions we face, from important, to less important decisions.

We are currently in the midst of an exciting contest for the Republican nomination for the Presidential Candidate to face off against incumbent President, Barrack Obama. Recently, voters in Iowa came out strongly in favor of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. I would like to explore why people voted for Santorum, and was it really better than their BATNA, using the principles laid above.

The first question is why cast a vote at a primary/caucus. I suppose that people vote because they want to participate in choosing the candidate who will represent their party in the general election and ultimately, serve as President. The second question is why vote for a specific candidate. This is a more difficult question because there is broad range of possibilities. Voters may believe that the candidate’s beliefs and opinions are most closely aligned with the voters’ own beliefs and opinions and because they would prefer a kindred spirit running the country, they will vote for that candidate. Other voters may not have strong feelings about the hot topic issues and instead looks for leadership qualities befitting a Head of State. Hopefully, most voters recognize that these considerations should not be considered in a vacuum, because a candidates opinions and leadership qualities, are both vitally important.

Following the principles of negotiation, I will attempt to demonstrate why voting for Santorum is  indefensible.  In this illustration, voting will take the place of sitting at the negotiating table. A voter must know his/her BATNA and so must first determine his/her reservation value. In voting in a primary, one could argue that there is no reservation value for voting, because there is no possible negative outcome for voting for the candidate of the voter’s choosing, in the way that remaining at the negotiating table can lead to agreeing to a deal detrimental to negotiator. Thus, there is no need to discover other alternatives or even the best alternative, because there is simply no point at which the voter will not vote (this discussion is not factoring in the de minimis costs of casting a vote such as time).

However, this analysis is fundamentally incorrect. There is a possible negative outcome for a voter who votes for an unelectable candidate such as Rick Santorum (of course if a republican voter’s second choice after Santorum is Obama, then the following discussion does not apply, but I do not believe that such a voter exists). A voter’s reservation value should include an analysis of the unelectability of the candidate. The voter must factor in the importance having a candidate from his/her own party win the election. Thus, the reservation value for voting for a specific candidate, must at the very least be the point at which a candidate will have a chance at winning the general election. Voting for an unelectable candidate is not only a waste of time and utility, but  also should be understood to be outside a voter’s ZOPA, or Zone Of Possible Agreement, and thus below the voter’s reservation value, and the voter’s BATNA would either be not voting, or voting for the most tolerable electable candidate.

Voting for Santorum in the hope that he will represent the Republican Party in the upcoming presidential election against Obama should be recognized as below any Republican voter’s reservation value of having a Republican in office. His stances on banning contraception gay marriage may have support from the far right, but will alienate the all important moderate republicans and independents and render him utterly unelectable. Voting for Santorum is akin to voting for Obama.

 

Comments

  1. Ben says

    4 January, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    Three points on this:

    1. You’re relying on the belief that Rick Santorum is unelectable. But while he’s certainly not a strong candidate, Republican voters probably believe he has a shot. He’s won election in Pennsylvania before; if he carried that state and all the states to its right, he’d be President. Far stranger things have happened.

    2. A Republican voter who didn’t believe Santorum could be elected could still rationally vote for him as a temporary way of denying Mitt Romney the nomination. The hope would be that by preventing Romney from clinching now, they preserve the possibility of a stronger candidate emerging later (perhaps at a brokered convention).

    3. A Republican could vote for Santorum in the hope that he would move the national conversation rightward, even in defeat. This might pave the way for a future candidate with the voter’s values to win.

    It’s really important, in politics and negotiation both, to attend to people’s actual interests as they perceive them—not to what we feel their interests ought to be. When 30,000 people have just done something you feel is irrational and indefensible, you probably don’t understand their needs and interests as well as you might.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recent Online Articles

  • Addressing Domestic Violence in Mediation: The Need for More Uniformity and Research
  • What Are We Learning About Convening Peace in a Pandemic?: Authors Lisa Dicker and Danae Paterson Reflect on their Spring 2020 Article
  • Forced into Employment Arbitration? Sexual Harassment Victims are Saying #MeToo and Beginning to Fight Back—But They Need Congressional Help
  • How Litigation Funders Have Improved the Quality of Settlements in America
  • “Behind-the-Table” Conflicts in the Failed Negotiation for a Referendum for the Independence of Catalonia: A Student Note by Oriol Valentí i Vidal
  • Power Imbalances in Mediation: A student note by Amrita Narine
  • “Son be a Dentist:” Restorative Justice and the Dalhousie Dental School Scandal by Annalise Acorn
  • Negotiating the Non-Negotiable: National Security & Negotiation
  • Stiffing the Arbitrators: The Problem of Nonpayment in Commercial Arbitration
  • Bargaining in the Shadow of the “Law?” — The Case of Same-Sex Divorce

Archives

  • May 2021
  • February 2021
  • August 2020
  • December 2017
  • February 2017
  • October 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • October 2014
  • March 2014
  • January 2014
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • November 2010
  • August 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • July 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • November 2008

About HNLR

Negotiation, not adjudication, resolves most legal conflicts. However, despite the fact that dispute resolution is central to the practice of law and has become a “hot” topic in legal circles, a gap in the literature persists. “Legal negotiation” — negotiation with lawyers in the middle and legal institutions in the background — has escaped systematic analysis.

The Harvard Negotiation Law Review works to close this gap by providing a forum in which scholars from many disciplines can discuss negotiation as it relates to law and legal institutions. It is aimed specifically at lawyers and legal scholars.

OUR FLAGSHIP SPONSOR

Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST FOR INFORMATION ON UPCOMING EVENTS

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2023 · Outreach Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in