The Condorcet Jur(ies) Theorem
AbstractShould two issues be decided jointly by a single committee or in separately by different committees? Similarly, should two defendants be tried together in a joint trial or tried separately in severed trials? Multiplicity of issues or defendants introduces novel strategic considerations. As in the standard Condorcet Jury Theorem, we consider large committees with common values and incomplete information. Our main result is that the joint trial by a single committee can aggregate information if and only if the severed trials by separate committees can aggregate information. Specifically, suppose that either for the joint trial or for the severed trials there exists a sequence of equilibria that implements the optimal outcome with probability approaching one as the number of voters goes to infinity. Then a sequence of equilibria with similar asymptotic efficiency exists for the other format. Thus, the advantage of either format cannot hinge on pure information aggregation with many signals.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by David K. Levine in its series Levine's Working Paper Archive with number 661465000000000268.
Date of creation: 18 Oct 2010
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.dklevine.com/
Other versions of this item:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bozbay Irem & Dietrich Franz & Peters Hans, 2011. "Judgment aggregation in search for the truth," Research Memorandum 040, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
- Christian List & Ben Polak, 2010.
"Introduction to Judgment Aggregation,"
Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers
1753, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- John List & Matti Liski, 2005. "Introduction," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(2), pages 121-121, 06.
- David S. Ahn & Santiago Oliveros, 2012.
Econometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 89-141, 01.
- de Clippel, Geoffroy & Eliaz, Kfir, 2012.
"Premise-Based versus Outcome-Based Information Aggregation,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
8733, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Geoffroy de Clippel & Kfir Eliaz, 2012. "Premise-Based versus Outcome-Based Information Aggregation," Working Papers 2012-10, Brown University, Department of Economics.
- Bozbay, Irem, 2012. "Truth-Seeking Judgment Aggregation over Interconnected Issues," Working Papers 2012:31, Lund University, Department of Economics.
- Ruth Ben-Yashar & Leif Danziger, 2014.
"On the Optimal Composition of Committees,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
4685, CESifo Group Munich.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (David K. Levine).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.