The possibility of judgment aggregation on agendas with subjunctive implications
The new field of judgment aggregation aims to find collective judgments on logically interconnected propositions. Recent impossibility results establish limitations on the possibility to vote independently on the propositions. I show that, fortunately, the impossibility results do not apply to a wide class of realistic agendas once propositions like "if a then b" are adequately modelled, namely as subjunctive implications rather than material implications. For these agendas, consistent and complete collective judgments can be reached through appropriate quota rules (which decide propositions using acceptance thresholds). I characterise the class of these quota rules. I also prove an abstract result that characterises consistent aggregation for arbitrary agendas in a general logic.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
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.:
- Philippe Mongin, 2005.
"Factoring Out the Impossibility of Logical Aggregation,"
- Mongin, Philippe, 2008. "Factoring out the impossibility of logical aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 141(1), pages 100-113, July.
- Mongin, Philippe, 2006. "Factoring out the impossibility of logical aggregation," Les Cahiers de Recherche 854, HEC Paris.
- Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2007.
"Strategy-Proof Judgment Aggregation,"
Economics and Philosophy,
Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(03), pages 269-300, November.
- Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2004. "Strategy-proof judgment aggregation," Public Economics 0404007, EconWPA, revised 25 Jul 2005.
- Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2007. "Strategy-proof judgment aggregation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 5812, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2005. "Strategy-proof judgment aggregation," STICERD - Political Economy and Public Policy Paper Series 09, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
- Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2005. "Strategy-proof judgment aggregation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 19299, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Martin Hees, 2007. "The limits of epistemic democracy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(4), pages 649-666, June.
- List, Christian & Pettit, Philip, 2002. "Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(01), pages 89-110, April.
- Dietrich Franz & List Christian, 2006. "Judgment aggregation on restricted domains," Research Memorandum 033, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
- Franz Dietrich, 2007. "A generalised model of judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(4), pages 529-565, June.
- Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2005.
"Judgment aggregation by quota rules,"
- Christian List, 2002. "A Model of Path-Dependence in Decisions over Multiple Propositions," Economics Papers 2002-W15, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
- Dietrich, Franz, 2006. "Judgment aggregation: (im)possibility theorems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 286-298, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:145:y:2010:i:2:p:603-638. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.