IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v16y2017i2p210-232.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Aggregating out of indeterminacy

Author

Listed:
  • Brian Kogelmann

    (University of Arizona, USA)

Abstract

This article explores public reason liberalism’s indeterminacy problem, a problem that obtains when we admit significant diversity into our justificatory model. The article argues first that Gerald Gaus’s solution to the indeterminacy problem is unsatisfactory and second that, contra Gaus’s concerns, social choice theory is able to solve public reason’s indeterminacy problem. Moreover, social choice theory can do so in a way that avoids the worries raised against Gaus’s solution to the indeterminacy problem as well as the worries Gaus himself raises against the use of social choice mechanisms. Social choice theory thus rescues public reason liberalism by aggregating out of indeterminacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian Kogelmann, 2017. "Aggregating out of indeterminacy," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 16(2), pages 210-232, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:16:y:2017:i:2:p:210-232
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X17693995
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X17693995
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X17693995?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. List, Christian & Pettit, Philip, 2002. "Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 89-110, April.
    2. Gehrlein, William V., 1992. "Condorcet efficiency of simple voting rules for large electorates," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 61-66, September.
    3. Felsenthal, Dan S. & Maoz, Zeev & Rapoport, Amnon, 1993. "An Empirical Evaluation of Six Voting Procedures: Do They Really Make Any Difference?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 1-27, January.
    4. William Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2009. "The Unexpected Behavior of Plurality Rule," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 267-293, September.
    5. Dowding, Keith & Van Hees, Martin, 2008. "In Praise of Manipulation," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(1), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Gehrlein, William V., 1985. "Condorcet efficiency of constant scoring rules for large electorates," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 13-15.
    7. Nurmi, Hannu, 1992. "An Assessment of Voting System Simulations," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 459-487, June.
    8. Merlin, V. & Tataru, M. & Valognes, F., 2000. "On the probability that all decision rules select the same winner," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 183-207, March.
    9. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    10. Gehrlein, William V. & Lepelley, Dominique, 2000. "The probability that all weighted scoring rules elect the same winner," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 191-197, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John C. McCabe-Dansted & Arkadii Slinko, 2006. "Exploratory Analysis of Similarities Between Social Choice Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 77-107, January.
    2. William V. Gehrlein & Hemant V. Kher, 2004. "Decision Rules for the Academy Awards Versus Those for Elections," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 226-234, June.
    3. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2007. "Strategy-Proof Judgment Aggregation," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 269-300, November.
    4. Birendra K. Rai1 & Chiu Ki So & Aaron Nicholas, 2011. "Mathematical Economics: A Reader," Monash Economics Working Papers 02-11, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    5. Lirong Xia, 2021. "The Smoothed Satisfaction of Voting Axioms," Papers 2106.01947, arXiv.org.
    6. Truchon, Michel, 2004. "Aggregation of Rankings in Figure Skating," Cahiers de recherche 0402, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    7. Gehrlein, William V. & Lepelley, Dominique, 2000. "The probability that all weighted scoring rules elect the same winner," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 191-197, February.
    8. Edgardo Bucciarelli & Andrea Oliva, 2020. "Arrow’s impossibility theorem as a special case of Nash equilibrium: a cognitive approach to the theory of collective decision-making," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(1), pages 15-41, June.
    9. Stensholt, Eivind, 2020. "Anomalies of Instant Runoff Voting," Discussion Papers 2020/6, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    10. Ozkes, Ali I. & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2023. "Uniform random dictatorship: A characterization without strategy-proofness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    11. Zoi Terzopoulou & Ulle Endriss, 2019. "Strategyproof judgment aggregation under partial information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(3), pages 415-442, October.
    12. Lars J. K. Moen, 2024. "Collective agency and positive political theory," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 36(1), pages 83-98, January.
    13. Baumeister, Dorothea & Erdélyi, Gábor & Erdélyi, Olivia J. & Rothe, Jörg, 2015. "Complexity of manipulation and bribery in judgment aggregation for uniform premise-based quota rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 19-30.
    14. Wilson, Mark C. & Pritchard, Geoffrey, 2007. "Probability calculations under the IAC hypothesis," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 244-256, December.
    15. Zoi Terzopoulou & Ulle Endriss, 2022. "Strategic manipulation in judgment aggregation under higher-level reasoning," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 363-385, March.
    16. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2021. "Voting for compromises: alternative voting methods in polarized societies," ECON - Working Papers 394, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    17. Saari, Donald G. & Valognes, Fabrice, 1999. "The geometry of Black's single peakedness and related conditions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 429-456, December.
    18. Nuñez, M. & Valletta, G., 2012. "The information simplicity of scoring rules," Research Memorandum 011, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    19. Lirong Xia, 2021. "Semi-Random Impossibilities of Condorcet Criterion," Papers 2107.06435, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    20. Nicholas R. Miller, 2019. "Reflections on Arrow’s theorem and voting rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 113-124, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:16:y:2017:i:2:p:210-232. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.