Consistent Judgement Aggregation: The Truth-Functional Case1
نویسنده
چکیده
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 be “oligarchic,” that is: unanimous within a subset of agents, and typically even be dictatorial. We characterize exactly when consistent non-dictatorial (or anonymous) aggregation rules exist, allowing for arbitrary conclusions and arbitrary interdependencies among premises.
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 کاملIncoherent majorities: The McGarvey problem in judgement aggregation
Judgement aggregation is a model of social choice where the space of social alternatives is the set of consistent truth-valuations (‘judgements’) on a family of logically interconnected propositions. It is well-known that propositionwise majority voting can yield logically inconsistent judgements. We show that, for a variety of spaces, propositionwise majority voting can yield any possible judg...
متن کاملThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem
In this paper we analyze judgement aggregation problems in which a group of agents independently votes on a set of complex propositions that has some interdependency constraint between them (e.g., transitivity when describing preferences). We consider the issue of judgement aggregation from the perspective of approximation. That is, we generalize the previous results by studying approximate jud...
متن کاملThe median rule in judgement aggregation
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 disagr...
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