Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Who should cast the casting vote? Using sequential voting to amalgamate information.Steve Alpern & Bo Chen - 2017 - Theory and Decision 83 (2):259-282.
    In this study, we are concerned with how agents can best amalgamate their private information about a binary state of Nature. The agents are heterogeneous in their “ability”, the quality of their private information. The agents cannot directly communicate their private information but instead can only vote between the two states. We first describe possible methods of sequential majority voting, and then we analyze a particular one: the first n-1\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$n-1$$\end{document} jurors vote (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Comparison of the Polar Decision Rules for Various Types of Distributions.Luba Sapir - 2004 - Theory and Decision 56 (3):325-343.
    We focus on the dichotomous choice model, which goes back as far as Condorcet (1785; Essai sur l'application de l'analyse a la probabilité des décisions rendues a la pluralité des voix, Paris). A group of experts is required to select one of two alternatives, of which exactly one is regarded as correct. The alternatives may be related to a wide variety of areas. A decision rule translates the individual opinions of the members into a group decision. A decision rule is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Partial information on decisional competences and the desirability of the expert rule in uncertain dichotomous choice situations.Shmuel Nitzan & Jacob Paroush - 1994 - Theory and Decision 17 (3):275-286.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Plural Voting for the Twenty-First Century.Thomas Mulligan - 2018 - Philosophical Quarterly 68 (271):286-306.
    Recent political developments cast doubt on the wisdom of democratic decision-making. Brexit, the Colombian people's (initial) rejection of peace with the FARC, and the election of Donald Trump suggest that the time is right to explore alternatives to democracy. In this essay, I describe and defend the epistocratic system of government which is, given current theoretical and empirical knowledge, most likely to produce optimal political outcomes—or at least better outcomes than democracy produces. To wit, we should expand the suffrage as (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  • The essential ranking of decision rules in small panels of experts.Drora Karotkin, Samuel Nitzal & Jacob Paroush - 1988 - Theory and Decision 24 (3):253-268.
  • Optimal jury design for homogeneous juries with correlated votes.Serguei Kaniovski & Alexander Zaigraev - 2011 - Theory and Decision 71 (4):439-459.
    In a homogeneous jury, in which each vote is correct with the same probability, and each pair of votes correlates with the same correlation coefficient, there exists a correlation-robust voting quota, such that the probability of a correct verdict is independent of the correlation coefficient. For positive correlation, an increase in the correlation coefficient decreases the probability of a correct verdict for any voting rule below the correlation-robust quota, and increases that probability for any above the correlation-robust quota. The jury (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The Premises of Condorcet’s Jury Theorem Are Not Simultaneously Justified.Franz Dietrich - 2008 - Episteme 5 (1):56-73.
    Condorcet's famous jury theorem reaches an optimistic conclusion on the correctness of majority decisions, based on two controversial premises about voters: they are competent and vote independently, in a technical sense. I carefully analyse these premises and show that: whether a premise is justi…ed depends on the notion of probability considered; none of the notions renders both premises simultaneously justi…ed. Under the perhaps most interesting notions, the independence assumption should be weakened.
    Direct download (20 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Epistemic Democracy with Defensible Premises.Franz Dietrich & Kai Spiekermann - 2013 - Economics and Philosophy 29 (1):87--120.
    The contemporary theory of epistemic democracy often draws on the Condorcet Jury Theorem to formally justify the ‘wisdom of crowds’. But this theorem is inapplicable in its current form, since one of its premises – voter independence – is notoriously violated. This premise carries responsibility for the theorem's misleading conclusion that ‘large crowds are infallible’. We prove a more useful jury theorem: under defensible premises, ‘large crowds are fallible but better than small groups’. This theorem rehabilitates the importance of deliberation (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   38 citations  
  • A model of jury decisions where all jurors have the same evidence.Franz Dietrich & Christian List - 2004 - Synthese 142 (2):175 - 202.
    Under the independence and competence assumptions of Condorcet’s classical jury model, the probability of a correct majority decision converges to certainty as the jury size increases, a seemingly unrealistic result. Using Bayesian networks, we argue that the model’s independence assumption requires that the state of the world (guilty or not guilty) is the latest common cause of all jurors’ votes. But often – arguably in all courtroom cases and in many expert panels – the latest such common cause is a (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   42 citations