Judgment Aggregation Rules and Voting Rules
نویسندگان
چکیده
Several recent articles have defined and studied judgment aggregation rules based on some minimization principle. Although some of them are defined by analogy with some voting rules, the exact connection between these rules and voting rules is not always obvious. We explore these connections and show how several well-known voting rules such as the top cycle, Copeland, maximin, Slater or ranked pairs, are recovered as specific cases of judgment aggregation rules.
منابع مشابه
A partial taxonomy of judgment aggregation rules and their properties
The literature on judgment aggregation has now been moving from studying impossibility results regarding aggregation rules towards studying specific judgment aggregation rules. Here we focus on a family of rules that is the natural counterpart of the family of Condorcetconsistent voting rules: majority-preserving judgment aggregation rules. A judgment aggregation rule is majority-preserving if ...
متن کاملMajority-preserving judgment aggregation rules
The literature on judgment aggregation has now been moving from studying impossibility results regarding aggregation rules towards studying specific judgment aggregation rules. Here we focus on a family of rules that is the natural counterpart of the family of Condorcet-consistent voting rules: majority-preserving judgment aggregation rules. A judgment aggregation rule is majority-preserving if...
متن کاملStrategy-proof Judgment Aggregation
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 Gibba...
متن کاملTruth - tracking judgment aggregation over interconnected issues ∗
This paper analyses the problem of aggregating judgments over multiple interconnected issues. Voters share a common preference for reaching true collective judgments, but hold private information about what the truth might be. Information conflicts may occur both between and within voters. Following Bozbay, Dietrich and Peters (2014), we assume strategic voting in a Bayesian voting game setting...
متن کاملOnline Judgment in the Context of International and National Rules: Ethical and Legal Challenges
Background: Online judgment is an economical and faster way than the judicial one. With the development of technology in recent decades, it has also been possible to make judgments online. Although few countries have incorporated this approach into their laws, online judgments are being developed and implemented in various areas such as international trade or intellectual property. The pres...
متن کامل