The Majority that Wasn't: Stare Decisis, Majority Rule, and the Mischief of Quorum Requirements

Majority Consensus and the Local Majority Rule

we only show one further result that emphasizes our point that understanding LMP is fundamental to understanding any generalization of this process. A simple generalization of the local majority process would allow vertex v to have some resistivity towards color switch. Formally, for a nonnegative integer kv, we de ne a kv-local majority rule for vertex v: ct+1 v = ( ctv if jfw 2 Nv : ctw = ctv...

Stare Decisis and the Rule of Law: A Layered Approach

Why Stare Decisis?∗

All Courts rule ex-post, after most economic decisions are sunk. This can generate a time-inconsistency problem. From an ex-ante perspective, Courts will have the ex-post temptation to be excessively lenient. This observation is at the root of the rule of precedent, known as stare decisis. Stare decisis forces Courts to weigh the benefits of leniency towards the current parties against the bene...

Majority rule in the absence of a majority

Which is the best, impartially most plausible consensus view to serve as the basis of democratic group decision when voters disagree? Assuming that the judgment aggregation problem can be framed as a matter of judging a set of binary propositions (“issues”), we develop a multi-issue majoritarian approach based on the criterion of supermajority efficiency (SME). SME reflects the idea that smalle...

The Consistency of Majority Rule

We propose an analysis of the impossibility results in judgement aggregation by means of a proof-theoretical approach to collective rationality. In particular, we use linear logic in order to analyse the group inconsistencies and to show possible ways to circumvent them.