Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T00:34:29.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A MODEL OF DELIBERATIVE AND AGGREGATIVE DEMOCRACY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2015

Juan Perote-Peña  and
Ashley Piggins
Juan Perote-Peña
Affiliation:
Departamento de Análisis Económico, Universidad de Zaragoza, Gran Vía 2, 50005 Zaragoza, Spain. Email: [email protected]
Ashley Piggins
Affiliation:
J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics and the Whitaker Institute, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

We present a model of collective decision making in which aggregation and deliberation are treated simultaneously. Individuals debate in a public forum and potentially revise their judgements in light of deliberation. Once this process is exhausted, a rule is applied to aggregate post-deliberation judgements in order to make a social choice. Restricting attention to three alternatives, we identify conditions under which a democracy is ‘truth-revealing’. This condition says that the deliberation path and the aggregation rule always lead to the correct social choice being made, irrespective of both the original profile of judgements and the size of the electorate.

Keywords

Deliberationaggregationsocial choice theory
Type
Symposium on Individual and Social Deliberation
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 93 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arrow, K. J. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, D. and Feddersen, T. J.. 2006. Deliberation, preference uncertainty, and voting rules. American Political Science Review 100: 209–217.Google Scholar
Black, D. 1948. On the rationale of group decision making. Journal of Political Economy 56: 23–34.Google Scholar
Black, D. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, J. and Rehg, W., eds. 1997. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, L. and Rabinowicz, W.. 2006. Democratic answers to complex questions: an epistemic perspective. Synthese 150: 131–153.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 1991. Weighing Goods. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 2004. Weighing Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Calvert, R. 2006. Deliberation as coordination through cheap talk. Working paper, Washington University, St. Louis, MI.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. E. 2006. Incentives: Motivation and the Economics of Information. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1986. An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics 97: 26–38.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1989. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, ed. Hamlin, A. and Pettit, P., 67–92. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cunningham, F. 2002. Theories of Democracy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C.. 2007. Arrow's theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 29: 19–33.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics and Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. and List, C.. 2003. Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: a reconciliation. British Journal of Political Science 33: 1–28.Google Scholar
Duddy, C. and Piggins, A.. 2012. A measure of distance between judgment sets. Social Choice and Welfare 39: 855–867.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1986. The market and the forum. In Foundations of Social Choice Theory, ed. Elster, J. and Hylland, A., 103–132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. ed. 1998. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Estlund, D. ed. 2002. Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Gaertner, W. 2001. Domain Conditions in Social Choice Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. 1973. Manipulability of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41: 587–601.Google Scholar
Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D.. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discursive Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hafer, C. and Landa, D.. 2007. Deliberation as self-discovery and institutions for political speech. Journal of Theoretical Politics 19: 329–360.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J. G. and Snell, J. L.. 1962. Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences. New York, NY: Ginn.Google Scholar
Knight, J. and Johnson, J.. 1994. Aggregation and deliberation: on the possibility of democratic legitimacy. Political Theory 22: 277–296.Google Scholar
Landa, D. and Meirowitz, A.. 2009. Game theory, information, and deliberative democracy. American Journal of Political Science 53: 427–444.Google Scholar
List, C. 2005. The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions. Social Choice and Welfare 24: 3–32.Google Scholar
List, C. 2011. Group communication and the transformation of judgments: an impossibility result. Journal of Political Philosophy 19: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C., Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. and McLean, I.. 2013. Deliberation, single-peakedness, and the possibility of meaningful democracy: Evidence from deliberative polls. Journal of Politics 75: 80–95.Google Scholar
List, C. and Pettit, P.. 2002. Aggregating sets of judgments: an impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy 18: 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. and Polak, B.. 2010. Introduction to judgment aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory 145: 441–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. and Puppe, C.. 2009. Judgment aggregation: a survey. In The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice, ed. Anand, P., Pattanaik, P. and Puppe, C., 457–482. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Macedo, S. ed. 1999. Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Mill, D. 1996. The possibility of rational outcomes from democratic discourse and procedures. Journal of Politics 58: 734–752.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1992. Deliberative democracy and social choice. Political Studies XL, Special Issue: 54–67.Google Scholar
Perote-Peña, J. and Piggins, A.. 2002. Geometry and impossibility. Economic Theory 20: 831–836.Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. 1982. Liberalism Against Populism. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Saari, D. G. 1995. Basic Geometry of Voting. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Saari, D.G. 2001. Chaotic Elections!: A Mathematician Looks At Voting. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, M. A. 1975. Strategy-proofness and arrow's conditions: existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory 10: 187–217.Google Scholar
Young, H. P. 1975. Social choice scoring functions. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 28: 824–838.Google Scholar