The median rule in judgement aggregation
نویسندگان
چکیده
A judgement aggregation rule takes the views of a collection of voters over a set of interconected issues, and yields a logically consistent collective view. The median rule is a judgement aggregation rule that selects the logically consistent view which minimizes the average distance to the views of the voters (where the “distance” between two views is the number of issues on which they disagree). In the special case of preference aggregation, this is called the Kemeny rule. We show that, under appropriate regularity conditions, the median rule is the unique judgement aggregation rule which satisfies three axioms: Ensemble Supermajority Efficiency, Reinforcement, and Continuity. Our analysis covers aggregation problems in which different issues have different weights, and in which the consistency restrictions on input and output judgments may differ. JEL classification: D71.
منابع مشابه
The geometry of consistent majoritarian judgement aggregation
Given a set of propositions with unknown truth values, a ‘judgement aggregation rule’ is a way to aggregate the personal truth-valuations of a set of jurors into some ‘collective’ truth valuation. We introduce the class of ‘quasimajoritarian’ judgement aggregation rules, which includes majority vote, but also includes some rules which use different weighted voting schemes to decide the truth of...
متن کاملConsistent Judgement Aggregation: The Truth-Functional Case1
Generalizing the celebrated “discursive dilemma,” we analyze judgement aggregation problems in which a group of agents independently votes on a set of complex propositions (the “conclusions”) and on a set of “premises” by which the conclusions are truth-functionally determined. We show that for conclusionand premise-based aggregation rules to be mutually consistent, the aggregation must always ...
متن کاملA geometric approach to judgement aggregation
The problem of judgement aggregation consists in aggregating individual judgments on an agenda of logically interconnected propositions into a collective set of judgments on these propositions. This relatively new literature (see List and Puppe (2007) for a survey) is centred on problems like the discursive dilemma which are structurally similar to paradoxes and problems in social choice theory...
متن کاملLinguistic-based voting through centered OWA operators
Two linguistic-based voting systems have been introduced in recent years, namely: Majority Judgement (Balinski and Laraki, 2007) and Range Voting (Smith, 2000). The keys for them are aggregation procedures based on the median and the arithmetic mean of the grades assessed to the alternatives, respectively. In this paper a comprehensive framework based on centered OWA operators (Yager, 2007) and...
متن کاملUniversity of Groningen Logical Constraints on Judgement Aggregation
Logical puzzles like the doctrinal paradox raise the problem of how to aggregate individual judgements into a collective judgement, or alternatively, how to merge collectively inconsistent knowledge bases. In this paper, we view judgement aggregation as a function on propositional logic valuations, and we investigate how logic constrains judgement aggregation. In particular, we show that there ...
متن کامل