IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v63y2024i3d10.1007_s00355-024-01561-y.html

United for change: deliberative coalition formation to change the status quo

Author

Listed:
  • Edith Elkind

    (University of Oxford)

  • Davide Grossi

    (Groningen and University of Amsterdam)

  • Ehud Shapiro

    (Weizmann Institute of Science)

  • Nimrod Talmon

    (Ben-Gurion University)

Abstract

We study a setting in which a community wishes to identify a strongly supported proposal from a space of alternatives, in order to change the status quo. We describe a deliberation process in which agents dynamically form coalitions around proposals that they prefer over the status quo. We formulate conditions on the space of proposals and on the ways in which coalitions are formed that guarantee deliberation to succeed, that is, to terminate by identifying a proposal with the largest possible support. Our results provide theoretical foundations for the analysis of deliberative processes such as the ones that take place in online systems for democratic deliberation support.

Suggested Citation

  • Edith Elkind & Davide Grossi & Ehud Shapiro & Nimrod Talmon, 2024. "United for change: deliberative coalition formation to change the status quo," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(3), pages 717-746, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:63:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s00355-024-01561-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-024-01561-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00355-024-01561-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00355-024-01561-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Darmann & Edith Elkind & Sascha Kurz & Jérôme Lang & Joachim Schauer & Gerhard Woeginger, 2018. "Group activity selection problem with approval preferences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(3), pages 767-796, September.
    2. Chung, Hun & Duggan, John, 2020. "A Formal Theory of Democratic Deliberation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(1), pages 14-35, February.
    3. , & ,, 2006. "A study in the pragmatics of persuasion: a game theoretical approach," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 1(4), pages 395-410, December.
    4. David Austen-Smith & Timothy Feddersen, 2005. "Deliberation and Voting Rules," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: David Austen-Smith & John Duggan (ed.), Social Choice and Strategic Decisions, pages 269-316, Springer.
    5. Jacob Glazer & Ariel Rubinstein, 2004. "On Optimal Rules of Persuasion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(6), pages 1715-1736, November.
    6. Arnold, Tone & Schwalbe, Ulrich, 2002. "Dynamic coalition formation and the core," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 363-380, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Curello, Gregorio & Sinander, Ludvig, 2025. "Screening for breakthroughs," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 20(4), November.
    2. Evans, R. & Reiche, S., 2022. "When is a Contrarian Adviser Optimal?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2222, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    3. Gregorio Curello & Ludvig Sinander, 2024. "Screening for Breakthroughs," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2024_562, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    4. Matthias Lang, 2020. "Mechanism Design with Narratives," CESifo Working Paper Series 8502, CESifo.
    5. Geoffrey A. Chua & Gaoji Hu & Fang Liu, 2023. "Optimal multi-unit allocation with costly verification," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(3), pages 455-488, October.
    6. Jacob Glazer & Ariel Rubinstein, 2012. "A Model of Persuasion with Boundedly Rational Agents," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 120(6), pages 1057-1082.
    7. Silva, Francisco, 2019. "Renegotiation proof mechanism design with imperfect type verification," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(3), July.
    8. Sebastian Schweighofer-Kodritsch & Roland Strausz, 2023. "Principled Mechanism Design with Evidence," Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers 0030, Berlin School of Economics.
    9. Alessandro Ispano & Péter Vida, 2020. "Custodial Interrogations," THEMA Working Papers 2020-05, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    10. Péter Eső & Ádám Galambos, 2013. "Disagreement and evidence production in strategic information transmission," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(1), pages 263-282, February.
    11. Sher, Itai, 2011. "Credibility and determinism in a game of persuasion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 409-419, March.
    12. Burdea, Valeria & Montero, Maria & Sefton, Martin, 2023. "Communication with partially verifiable information: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 113-149.
    13. repec:ehu:ikerla:16268 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Osun, Elif B. & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2025. "Evidence games: Lying aversion and commitment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 329-350.
    15. Winand Emons & Claude Fluet, 2019. "Strategic communication with reporting costs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 341-363, October.
    16. Ben-Porath, Elchanan & Lipman, Barton L., 2012. "Implementation with partial provability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(5), pages 1689-1724.
    17. Hu, Xiaoxiao & Lei, Haoran, 2025. "The optimality of (stochastic) veto delegation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 215-234.
    18. Bull Jesse, 2008. "Mechanism Design with Moderate Evidence Cost," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, May.
    19. Elchanan Ben-Porath & Barton L. Lipman, 2009. "Implementation and Partial Provability," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series wp2009-002, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    20. Ian Ball & Xin Gao, 2025. "Checking Cheap Talk," Papers 2501.09875, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2026.
    21. Erlanson, Albin & Kleiner, Andreas, 2020. "Costly verification in collective decisions," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(3), July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sochwe:v:63:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s00355-024-01561-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    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 (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.