IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v32y2023i2d10.1007_s10726-022-09807-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Voting Records as Assessors of Premises Behind Collective Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Takuya Sekiguchi

    (RIKEN)

Abstract

The question of how to maximize benefits from the accuracy of collective decisions by weighting votes has been examined for a single-issue agenda. This study generalizes the existing optimal weighting rule in the context of collective judgment on an agenda consisting of multiple logically interconnected issues. Specifically, it determines the best approach to weight each voter’s judgment on a proposition in order to estimate the states of premises behind the proposition, which maximize the expected collective benefit obtained from their correctness, when voters’ judgments for the proposition are available as a record, but their judgments for premises are not available. Although the optimal weight assigned to a vote for a single-issue agenda has been known to depend only on voters’ competences (i.e., probability of a voter making a correct decision), we found that the weight in the case of multiple connected issues further depends on the content of the voter’s judgment. This difference raises a new question. In the case of a single-issue agenda, if voters have overwhelmingly high competence, dictatorial or oligarchic situations arise, namely, the weights to those voters can be so large that the remaining voters’ decisions do not affect the collective decision. By contrast, in the case of multiple connected issues, we should define who would be dictatorial or oligarchic in terms of the contents of their decisions, not just their competence. We examine the conditions under which such cases are likely to arise.

Suggested Citation

  • Takuya Sekiguchi, 2023. "Voting Records as Assessors of Premises Behind Collective Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 257-275, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:32:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-022-09807-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-022-09807-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-022-09807-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-022-09807-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Takuya Sekiguchi, 2016. "Optimal group composition for efficient division of labor," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 601-618, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Anand, Paul & Pattanaik, Prasanta & Puppe, Clemens (ed.), 2009. "The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199290420.
    4. Kaushik Mukhopadhaya, 2003. "Jury Size and the Free Rider Problem," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 24-44, April.
    5. Lloyd Shapley & Bernard Grofman, 1984. "Optimizing group judgmental accuracy in the presence of interdependencies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 329-343, January.
    6. Guha, Brishti, 2018. "Secret ballots and costly information gathering: The jury size problem revisited," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 58-67.
    7. Ben-Yashar, Ruth & Danziger, Leif, 2011. "Symmetric and asymmetric committees," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(4-5), pages 440-447.
    8. Nitzan, Shmuel & Paroush, Jacob, 1982. "Optimal Decision Rules in Uncertain Dichotomous Choice Situations," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 23(2), pages 289-297, June.
    9. Austen-Smith, David & Banks, Jeffrey S., 1996. "Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(1), pages 34-45, March.
    10. Eyal Baharad & Jacob Goldberger & Moshe Koppel & Shmuel Nitzan, 2012. "Beyond Condorcet: optimal aggregation rules using voting records," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 113-130, January.
    11. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Leif Danziger, 2014. "On the optimal composition of committees," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(4), pages 973-980, December.
    12. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan, 2001. "The invalidity of the Condorcet Jury Theorem under endogenous decisional skills," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 243-249, November.
    13. List, Christian, 2004. "A Model of Path-Dependence in Decisions over Multiple Propositions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(3), pages 495-513, August.
    14. Bryan C. McCannon & Paul Walker, 2016. "Endogenous competence and a limit to the Condorcet Jury Theorem," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-18, October.
    15. Christian List, 2005. "The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24(1), pages 3-32, May.
    16. Jean-François Bonnefon, 2010. "Behavioral evidence for framing effects in the resolution of the doctrinal paradox," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(4), pages 631-641, April.
    17. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Jacob Paroush, 2001. "Optimal decision rules for fixed-size committees in polychotomous choice situations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(4), pages 737-746.
    18. Jacob Paroush, 1997. "Stay away from fair coins: A Condorcet jury theorem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(1), pages 15-20.
    19. Takuya Sekiguchi, 2019. "Preferences over procedures and outcomes in judgment aggregation: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(2), pages 239-258, March.
    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. Takuya Sekiguchi & Hisashi Ohtsuki, 2023. "Aggregation of Correlated Judgments on Multiple Interconnected Issues," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 233-256, February.
    2. Takuya Sekiguchi, 2016. "Optimal group composition for efficient division of labor," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 601-618, November.
    3. Gerling, Kerstin & Gruner, Hans Peter & Kiel, Alexandra & Schulte, Elisabeth, 2005. "Information acquisition and decision making in committees: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 563-597, September.
    4. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Leif Danziger, 2015. "When is voting optimal?," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 3(2), pages 341-356, October.
    5. Eyal Baharad & Ruth Ben-Yashar, 2021. "Judgment Aggregation by a Boundedly Rational Decision-Maker," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 903-914, August.
    6. List, Christian & Polak, Ben, 2010. "Introduction to judgment aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 441-466, March.
    7. Eyal Baharad & Jacob Goldberger & Moshe Koppel & Shmuel Nitzan, 2012. "Beyond Condorcet: optimal aggregation rules using voting records," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 113-130, January.
    8. Aureli Alabert & Mercè Farré, 2022. "The doctrinal paradox: comparison of decision rules in a probabilistic framework," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(4), pages 863-895, May.
    9. Marcus Pivato, 2013. "Voting rules as statistical estimators," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 581-630, February.
    10. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Igal Milchtaich, 2003. "First and Second Best Voting Rules in Committees," Working Papers 2003-08, Bar-Ilan University, Department of Economics.
    11. Franz Dietrich, 2014. "Scoring rules for judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(4), pages 873-911, April.
    12. Mongin, Philippe & Dietrich, Franz, 2011. "An interpretive account of logical aggregation theory," HEC Research Papers Series 941, HEC Paris.
    13. Shmuel Nitzan & Tomoya Tajika, 2022. "Inequality of decision-makers’ power and marginal contribution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 275-292, March.
    14. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan, 2014. "On the significance of the prior of a correct decision in committees," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(3), pages 317-327, March.
    15. Philippe Mongin, 2012. "The doctrinal paradox, the discursive dilemma, and logical aggregation theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 315-355, September.
    16. Franz Dietrich & Kai Spiekermann, 2021. "Social Epistemology," Post-Print halshs-02431971, HAL.
    17. Bryan C. McCannon & Paul Walker, 2016. "Endogenous competence and a limit to the Condorcet Jury Theorem," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-18, October.
    18. Takuya Sekiguchi, 2019. "Preferences over procedures and outcomes in judgment aggregation: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(2), pages 239-258, March.
    19. Ruth Ben-Yashar, 2006. "Information is important to Condorcet jurors," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 305-319, June.
    20. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2013. "Propositionwise judgment aggregation: the general case," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 1067-1095, 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:spr:grdene:v:32:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-022-09807-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.