IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v29y2020i1d10.1007_s10726-019-09644-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Variable Competence and Collective Performance: Unanimity Versus Simple Majority Rule

Author

Listed:
  • Eyal Baharad

    (Bar Ilan University)

  • Ruth Ben-Yashar

    (Bar Ilan University)

  • Shmuel Nitzan

    () (Bar Ilan University
    Hitotsubashi University)

Abstract

Under the unanimity rule, a single voter may alter a decision that is unanimously accepted by all other voters. Under the simple majority rule, the impact of such a voter diminishes. This paper examines the marginal effect of competence on the collective performance—the likelihood of reaching a correct decision. It is shown that adding an incompetent voter to the group is inferior (superior) to giving up an existing competent voter, when the decision mechanism is the unanimity (simple majority) rule. The negative impact of an incompetent voter cannot (can) always be balanced by adding a competent one under the unanimity (simple majority) rule. Moreover, improving a single voter’s competence may have a greater effect on the collective performance under the simple majority rule relative to the unanimity rule.

Suggested Citation

  • Eyal Baharad & Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan, 2020. "Variable Competence and Collective Performance: Unanimity Versus Simple Majority Rule," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 157-167, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:29:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-019-09644-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-019-09644-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-019-09644-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    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. 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.
    2. Ben-Yashar, Ruth & Danziger, Leif, 2016. "The unanimity rule and extremely asymmetric committees," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 107-112.
    3. Ben-Yashar, Ruth C & Nitzan, Shmuel I, 1997. "The Optimal Decision Rule for Fixed-Size Committees in Dichotomous Choice Situations: The General Result," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 38(1), pages 175-186, February.
    4. Ladha, Krishna K., 1995. "Information pooling through majority-rule voting: Condorcet's jury theorem with correlated votes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 353-372, May.
    5. Laurent Bouton & Aniol Llorente-Saguer & Frédéric Malherbe, 2018. "Get Rid of Unanimity Rule: The Superiority of Majority Rules with Veto Power," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(1), pages 107-149.
    6. Lloyd Shapley & Bernard Grofman, 1984. "Optimizing group judgmental accuracy in the presence of interdependencies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 329-343, January.
    7. Sah, Raaj Kumar & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1988. "Committees, Hierarchies and Polyarchies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 98(391), pages 451-470, June.
    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. Eyal Baharad & Ruth Ben-Yashar, 2009. "The robustness of the optimal weighted majority rule to probability distortion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 53-59, April.
    10. Drora Karotkin & Jacob Paroush, 2003. "Optimum committee size: Quality-versus-quantity dilemma," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 20(3), pages 429-441, June.
    11. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan, 2001. "The robustness of optimal organizational architectures: A note on hierarchies and polyarchies," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(1), pages 155-163.
    12. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Mor Zahavi, 2011. "The Condorcet jury theorem and extension of the franchise with rationally ignorant voters," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 435-443, September.
    13. Ben-Yashar, Ruth & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1998. "Quality and structure of organizational decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 521-534, September.
    14. Daniel Berend & Luba Sapir, 2005. "Monotonicity in Condorcet Jury Theorem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24(1), pages 83-92, August.
    15. Scott Feld & Bernard Grofman, 1984. "The accuracy of group majority decisions in groups with added members," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 273-285, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:29:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-019-09644-3. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.