IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Judgment aggregation and agenda manipulation

  • Dietrich, Franz

When individual judgments ('yes' or 'no') on some propositions are aggregated into collective judgments, the agenda setter can sometimes reverse a collective judgment by changing the set of propositions under consideration (the agenda). I define different kinds of agenda manipulation, and axiomatically characterize the aggregation rules immune to each kind. Two axioms emerge as central for preventing agenda manipulation: the familiar independence axiom, requiring propositionwise aggregation, and the axiom of implicit consensus preservation, requiring the respect of any (possibly implicit) consensus. I prove that these axioms can almost never be satisfied together by a (non-degenerate) aggregation rule.

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.

File URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/51775/1/MPRA_paper_51775.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 51775.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Sep 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:51775
Contact details of provider: Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de

More information through EDIRC

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.:

as in new window
  1. Duddy, Conal & Piggins, Ashley, 2013. "Many-valued judgment aggregation: Characterizing the possibility/impossibility boundary," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(2), pages 793-805.
  2. Nehring, Klaus & Pivato, Marcus & Puppe, Clemens, 2013. "The Condorcet set: Majority voting over interconnected propositions," Working Paper Series in Economics 51, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Business Engineering.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Mongin, Philippe, 2006. "Factoring out the impossibility of logical aggregation," Les Cahiers de Recherche 854, HEC Paris.
  6. Conal Duddy & Ashley Piggins, 2012. "A measure of distance between judgment sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 855-867, October.
  7. Dietrich, Franz, 2006. "Judgment aggregation: (im)possibility theorems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 286-298, January.
  8. Dokow, Elad & Holzman, Ron, 2010. "Aggregation of binary evaluations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 495-511, March.
  9. Franz Dietrich, 2005. "Judgment aggregation in general logics," Public Economics 0505007, EconWPA.
  10. Wilson, Robert, 1975. "On the theory of aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 89-99, February.
  11. Michael Miller & Daniel Osherson, 2009. "Methods for distance-based judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 575-601, May.
  12. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2013. "Propositionwise judgment aggregation: the general case," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 1067-1095, April.
  13. Marcus Pivato, 2009. "Geometric models of consistent judgement aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 559-574, November.
  14. Klaus Nehring & Clemens Puppe, 2008. "Consistent judgement aggregation: the truth-functional case," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 41-57, June.
  15. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2010. "Majority voting on restricted domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 512-543, March.
  16. Dokow, Elad & Holzman, Ron, 2010. "Aggregation of binary evaluations with abstentions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 544-561, March.
  17. Duddy, Conal & Piggins, Ashley & Zwicker, William, 2014. "Aggregation of binary evaluations: a Borda-like approach," MPRA Paper 62071, University Library of Munich, Germany.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:51775. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.