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.:
- Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2005.
"Judgment aggregation by quota rules,"
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Philippe Mongin, 2005. "Factoring Out the Impossibility of Logical Aggregation," Working Papers hal-00243010, HAL.
- Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2004.
"Strategy-proof judgment aggregation,"
0404007, EconWPA, revised 25 Jul 2005.
- 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.
- 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.
- Dietrich, Franz, 2006. "Judgment aggregation: (im)possibility theorems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 286-298, January.
- 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).
- Christian List, 2002. "A Model of Path-Dependence in Decisions over Multiple Propositions," Economics Papers 2002-W15, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
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: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.