March 26, 2025, was another electrifying evening at the Election Lab Online event. It is an event where players from different backgrounds come together to experience the intensity and unpredictability of a U.S. presidential elections. Indeed, the level of critical thinking was palpable. Through fierce strategy, unexpected upsets, and moments of pure excitement, the event not only engaged participants in gameplay but also sparked deeper conversations. Topics of discussion ranged from strategies to civility, emotional intelligence, history, elections, and politics in general.
An Evening of Learning, Strategy, and Unexpected Twists
The event, held over Zoom, started with brief introductions before players entered the Game Playroom. Game Playroom is a virtual space where players assume the role of red or blue Presidential Candidate. Their job was to win the electoral college. In 1v1 matchups, one player took on the role of a red candidate and the other a blue candidate. Their task? To deploy their limited campaign resources wisely and secure enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
We dove right into playing the most advanced levels of the games. In those advanced levels, players are required to manage their campaign resources in addition to integrating related election data and election-related events. From first-timers to seasoned veterans, the night saw an incredible mix of experience levels. Yet, despite this variety, the event ran smoothly. There was not one technical glitch. The game worked perfectly. We were thrilled. The enthusiasm of the players was contagious. Some players returned from past events. They were excited to test new strategies or play new opponents. On the other hand, newcomers quickly grasped the mechanics, contributing to a lively and thought-provoking atmosphere. “It is interesting,” Mariora said. “I am getting the hang of it.” The overall learning curve for Election Lab is steep.
Unpredictable Moments & Strategy in Action
The unpredictability of the game kept everyone on their toes. Some players dominated early leads, only to fumble victory in the final moments. Others found themselves in nail-biting ties, with the presidency hinging on the fate of a single state.
One particularly thrilling moment came when a match between two players ended in a New Hampshire tie. It instantly evoked echoes of real-life electoral history. But tonight’s event didn’t just deliver one tie – it delivered two. How is that possible? The second tie unfolded dramatically in the very last state: Nevada. The excitement in the room was palpable.
The rarity of ties made the moment even more exhilarating. It reminded us of the 2016 Election Lab event in a packed middle school auditorium. That was an unforgettable experience. There, there was a single tie. It made the entire room erupt in cheers, regardless of party alignment. But tonight? Two ties in less than an hour! A record of our own.
But, as Stuart Criley pointed out, ties aren’t as rare as one might think. In the 2012 election between Romney and Obama, we calculated that there were 1,024 possible election outcome combinations. There, ties would have occurred 16 times. That historical insight struck a chord and added a depth to the game. It also reminded players just how razor-thin the margins of democracy can be.
Danita, a television writer and producer, thought that the game was very interesting. It is a great concept. “At the beginning, it was a little confusing, but I started getting into it.” she said. No wonder it was confusing! We placed novice players right into the most advanced versions of the game! But, they did very well, nonetheless. Indeed, they did. She elaborated further: “It made me think, how should I choose my resources? How will that affect me going and campaigning in a particular state? And what do you need to know about that state? And do I even want to go there?” These are all excellent questions. She shared that as she played, she started recognizing the weight of strategic decision-making. These are the very same questions that the real-life campaign teams face.
Lucas and Tomas discussed the strategy in the 2020 Election game they played head to head: Where to deploy your resources? When do you pivot? After playing through the 2024 and 2020 elections, George wanted to play even more election years. So, we did. As a bonus, we immersed them into playing the exciting election of 1860. They dove right in! But, what a difference in strategy and map it was! The shifts in strategy and the altered political landscape were striking.
Some players made quite bold moves, but they lost. Others won in stunning upsets. Even in 1860 election, surprises happened! Stuart and David experienced it, too. Before the Election of 1860, David was winning on the leaderboard. But Election 1860 changed it all. “He won 6 to 3 in Kentucky!” David exclaimed. There were lots of states in play. As Stuart pointed out, the more states in play, the tougher the strategic decisions become. That was evident in the 2024 election as well.
Danita found this historical shift and playing 1860 interesting. “You need to think of a completely different time period. You need to explore the dynamics of it. And what were people concerned about back then?”
Exactly! What forces shaped their decisions?
Lots of games were close. Some came down to the very last state. For Tomas, it came down to Ohio. “It was a striking win”, he said.
It was an evening of wild games, as Dan Khan put it. There were lots of upsets and even ties.
How does Election Lab Online GAME play affect players emotionally?
Beyond strategy and competition, the evening raised an even deeper question: Beyond critical thinking, how does Election Lab affect players emotionally?
Danita observed that while playing the game, she felt detached from the issues, focusing solely on strategy. This detachment, she noted, mirrors how political leaders might become engrossed in the game of winning, potentially losing sight of the real needs of the people they serve.
Aaron agreed. “There can be a real disconnect between policy and strategy,” he noted. We’re wired to want to win. Americans especially love competition. That drive to win might explain why people hold such strong political opinions. That might not always be because of policy but because winning itself becomes the goal. He also reflected on the significance of ties in the game. “When there’s a tie, it’s different. It doesn’t feel like someone lost. Instead, there’s this strange sense of closeness. Perhaps not all outcomes need to be zero-sum game? Perhaps not, but for the US Presidential Election?
Stuart added a profound insight: “The Election Lab game encourages strategic thinking over raw, tribal emotions. That’s a good thing. But an overly strategic mindset can have a cost, it can strip away the human element. The challenge is finding the balance.” That is so so true. What do you think?
There were many more comments and insights. Probably, I omitted many other remarkable ones. But I tried to share all I could remember at this time. All these reflections underscore Election Lab’s ability to not only educate players about electoral processes but also to prompt introspection about the emotional and ethical dimensions of political engagement. By simulating the strategic aspects of campaigns, the game offers a space to explore these dynamics in a controlled environment, potentially leading to a deeper understanding of the complexities inherent in political decision-making.
More Than Just a Game: A Lesson in History, Strategy, and Civility
As the event came to a close, players weren’t ready to step away. Interestingly, some were eager for more rounds. Others wanted another chance to claim the top spot on the leaderboard. Others simply craved one more strategic battle. But, beyond the competition, something deeper was unfolding.
Election Lab is more than just a game. It’s a space where history isn’t just studied -it is lived. A place where uncertainty isn’t feared – it is navigated. And where winning isn’t just about victory – it is about understanding.
If this event proved anything, it is that elections – whether simulated or real – are full of surprises.
Elections are about choices, strategies, and the unexpected moments that shape history. In the end, every choice shapes the outcome. Every vote carries weight. And every strategy – whether bold, cautious, or unexpected – can change the course of history.
But perhaps the most striking realization of all is that when the focus shifts from tribal emotion to strategic thinking, something remarkable happens—civility emerges. Civility takes tribal emotions’ place.
By engaging with the game, players weren’t just competing. They were reasoning, adapting, and learning to see the bigger picture. The usual divisions faded.
The usual battle lines faded. Winning wasn’t about crushing an opponent. Winning was about understanding the process, anticipating challenges, and making the best possible decisions with clarity, not anger.
And that is the lesson that lingers long after the game ends. Every choice still shapes the outcome. Every vote still carries weight.But when the game is played with strategy rather than hostility, it reminds us that even in the most competitive arenas, there is space for understanding, respect, and even shared moments of victory.
Dr. Jasminka Vukanovic-Criley MD, FACP, FHM is a multiple award-winning physician, internist, hospitalist, healthcare & education innovator & Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine at UCLA. She is a career mentor & advisor to numerous undergraduate, graduate & postgraduate students & faculty. As a researcher, Dr. Criley received awards from the National Institutes of Health & the U.S. Department of Education Her work focuses on creating research-driven #edtech games & digital media to improve health, civics, science education & promote healthy habits. Dr Criley is also a sought-after speaker & a founding Board member of Physician’s Weekly. She can be reached on X at @criley_md and at www.linkedin.com/in/jasminka-criley-md