UC Irvine

This dissertation consists of three chapters demonstrating novel applications of social choice and game theory concepts to Formula 1 racing. Chapter 1 explores the history of the sport, focusing on early connections to national politics in Europe, strategic manipulation of rules as the sport grew, and politics within the sport, including collective action and negotiations between competitors and various stakeholders. Also addressed is the evolution of scoring rules in the sport, what inspired early scoring systems, and the overall trajectory of historical changes to scoring. Chapter 2 looks at various strategic dilemmas faced by competitors and other parties involved in Formula 1. Particular attention is paid to cases in which an action, on the surface, appears counterintuitive. Hidden incentives are revealed, then used to explain the strategic thinking behind what is observed. Cases are classified according to their salient features, and parallels are drawn to other sports. Chapter 3 is dedicated to scoring in Formula 1. Scoring in the sport uses a variation of Borda count, and parallels traditional elections. Drivers are the equivalent of candidates and races play the role of voters, with the season-long championship being the election. Within this context I identify several examples of voting paradoxes and other concepts from social choice theory. Collectively, these three chapters examine a global, influential sport from multiple angles, including the political influence of the sport, politics within the sport, and the scoring of the sport as it relates to elections.