This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

In Defense of Exclusionary Deliberation: Communciation and Voting with Private Beliefs and Values

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Meirowitz, Adam (Princeton U)
Abstract

Fundamentally, deliberative democracy is an institution in which participants communicate and then vote. We analyze strategic behavior in this type of institution when agents do not necessarily have common beliefs and values. The potential for some pairs of participants to have diametrically opposed preferences makes it difficult to support equilibria in which participants truthfully reveal their private information. Nonetheless, truthful equilibria are shown to exits for some (but not all) parameterizations in which non-common values are likely. Truthful equilibria exist if and only if participants of all possible preference types believe that it is likely that a majority of the others share their preference type. Even when truthful equilibria fail to exist, the probability that the collective choice corresponds to that which a majority would choose, with full-information, approaches one as population size tends to infinity. Despite this limiting efficiency, larger groups need not outperform smaller groups as truthful equilibria are easier to support with small deliberative bodies. The design of deliberative institutions to aggregate information involves a trade-off between the statistical benefit of more participants and the strategic problems associated with information transmission in larger settings without common values. For many reasonable parameterizations, the latter effect is dominant and excluding randomly chosen participants is desirable.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://weblamp.princeton.edu/rppe/files/meirodelib2.pdf
File Format:
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy in its series Papers with number 04-06-2004.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Apr 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ecl:prirpe:04-06-2004

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://weblamp.princeton.edu/rppe/papers/papers.php
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().

Related research
Keywords:

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

  1. Wit, Jorgen, 1998. "Rational Choice and the Condorcet Jury Theorem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 364-376, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Roger B. Myerson, 1994. "Extended Poisson Games and the Condorcet Jury Theorem," Discussion Papers 1103, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  3. Timothy Feddersen & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1997. "Voting Behavior and Information Aggregation in Elections with Private Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(5), pages 1029-1058, September.
    Other versions:
  4. Lipman Barton L. & Seppi Duane J., 1995. "Robust Inference in Communication Games with Partial Provability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 370-405, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Dino Gerardi & Leeat Yariv, 2003. "Putting Your Ballot Where Your Mouth Is: An Analysis of Collective Choice with Communication," UCLA Economics Working Papers 827, UCLA Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  6. Duggan, John & Martinelli, Cesar, 2001. "A Bayesian Model of Voting in Juries," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 259-294, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  7. Timothy Feddersen & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1996. "Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts," Discussion Papers 1170, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science. [Downloadable!]
  8. Feddersen, Timothy J & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 1996. "The Swing Voter's Curse," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 408-24, June.
    Other versions:
    • Timothy J. Feddersen & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1995. "The Swing Voter's Curse," Discussion Papers 1064, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science. [Downloadable!]
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS is not the only service displaying RePEc data. Choose on RePEc which service fits your needs best.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-2.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.