Counting votes for aggregating judgments
نویسندگان
چکیده
The aim of judgment aggregation is to make collective decisions based on the judgments of individual agents. Some rationality conditions governing the expected behavior of the aggregation function must be considered. However, impossibility theorems show that designing an aggregation function satisfying all desirable properties is not feasible. While some rationality conditions are very natural ones, other ones are more disputable. We show that this is the case of the systematicity condition that prevents from electing issues with more votes than others. We rather promote a neutrality and a swap optimality condition. Swap optimality ensures that among two possible results, the one with the best support (number of votes) is chosen. We propose a new family of judgment aggregation methods based on the support (number of votes) that receives each issue.
منابع مشابه
Judgment aggregation in search for the truth
We analyse the problem of aggregating judgments over multiple issues from the perspective of whether aggregate judgments manage to e ciently use all voters’ private information. While new in judgment aggregation theory, this perspective is familiar in a di↵erent body of literature about voting between two alternatives where voters’ disagreements stem from conflicts of information rather than in...
متن کاملSome Statistics Concerning the Austrian Presidential Election 2016
The 2016 Austrian presidential runoff election have been repealed by the Austrian constitutional court. The results of the counted votes had yielded a victory of Alexander van der Bellen by a margin of 30.863 votes as compared to the votes for Norbert Hofer. However, the constitutional court found that 77.769 votes were “contaminated” as there have been at least on a formal level violations of ...
متن کاملResponsibility judgments in voting scenarios
How do people assign responsibility for the outcome of an election? In previous work, we have shown that responsibility judgments in achievement contexts are affected by the probability that a person’s contribution is necessary, and by how close it was to being pivotal (Lagnado, Gerstenberg, & Zultan, 2013). Here we focus on responsibility judgments in voting scenarios. We varied the number of ...
متن کاملBallot theorems, old and new
" There is a big difference between a fair game and a game it's wise to play. "-Bertrand (1887b). 1 A brief history of ballot theorems 1.1 Discrete time ballot theorems We begin by sketching the development of the classical ballot theorem as it first appeared in the Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences. The statement that is fairly called the first Ballot Theorem was due to Bertrand: Theor...
متن کاملAggregating Causal Judgments
Decision-making typically requires judgments about causal relations: we need to know the causal e§ects of our actions and the causal relevance of various environmental factors. We investigate how several individualsí causal judgments can be aggregated into collective causal judgments. First, we consider the aggregation of causal judgments via the aggregation of probabilistic judgments, and iden...
متن کامل