Few people would disagree that politics is a contest over ‘who gets what, when, and how’ (Lasswell 1936). Clearly and inevitably, it involves strategy and tactics, gamesmanship, bargaining, coalition building, and the like. How to ‘win’ at politics has fascinated humans since the dawn of history. But, until comparatively recently, the ‘how to win’ literature was mainly a collection of pithy insights and proverbs. It was far from anything resembling a science capable of analyzing, let alone predicting, the relevant strategic permutations. With the advent and development of rational choice theory-of which game theory (von Neumann and Morgenstern 1944), collective choice theory (Arrow 1951, Black 1958, Buchanan and Tullock 1962, Riker 1962), and economics are but three branches-all this has changed. Rational choice theory has altered the face not only of political science, but of sociology and organizational theory. While not dominant, and indeed often controversial in these fields (e.g., Lowi 1992), these new approaches, grouped under the rubric of rational choice theory, have permanently altered their landscapes. Moreover, beyond influencing the social science disciplines, the new approaches have had profound effects on the practical world of policy. The whole field of policy analysis (for better or worse) is heavily influenced by economic models and the cost-benefit paradigm. Government policies, big business strategies, and international calculations with respect to war and peace are increasingly influenced by mathematical modelling and game theoretic approaches (see, e.g., Bueno de Mesquita et al. 1985, Lewyn 1994).