Dietrich, Franz and List, Christian (2007) Strategy-proof judgment aggregation. Economics and Philosophy, 23 (3). pp. 269-300. ISSN 1474-0028
|
PDF
Download (205Kb) | Preview |
Abstract
Which rules for aggregating judgments on logically connected propositions are manipulable and which not? In this paper, we introduce a preference-free concept of non-manipulability and contrast it with a preference-theoretic concept of strategy-proofness. We characterize all non-manipulable and all strategy-proof judgment aggregation rules and prove an impossibility theorem similar to the Gibbard--Satterthwaite theorem. We also discuss weaker forms of non-manipulability and strategy-proofness. Comparing two frequently discussed aggregation rules, we show that “conclusion-based voting” is less vulnerable to manipulation than “premise-based voting”, which is strategy-proof only for “reason-oriented” individuals. Surprisingly, for “outcome-oriented” individuals, the two rules are strategically equivalent, generating identical judgments in equilibrium. Our results introduce game-theoretic considerations into judgment aggregation and have implications for debates on deliberative democracy.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Official URL: | http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJourna... |
| Additional Information: | © 2007 Cambridge University Press |
| Library of Congress subject classification: | H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General) B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > B Philosophy (General) H Social Sciences > HB Economic Theory |
| Sets: | Departments > Government Departments > Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method Collections > Economists Online Research centres and groups > Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science (CPNSS) |
| Date Deposited: | 22 Jun 2008 13:56 |
| URL: | http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/5812/ |
Actions (login required)
 |
Record administration - authorised staff only |
Download statistics
Download statistics