The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Voting Procedures for Complex Collective Decision

På svenska

Author

Summary, in English

it can let the committee members vote on each sub-question and then use the outcomes as premises for its conclusion on the main issue (premise based-procedure, pbp), or it can let the members directly vote on the conclusion (conclusion-based procedure, cbp). The procedures can lead to different results, but which of them is a better truth-tracker? On the basis of Condorcet's jury theorem, we show that the pbp is clearly superior if the objective is to reach truth for the right (= correct) reasons. However, if the goal instead is to reach truth for whatever reasons, right or wrong, there will be cases in which using the cbp turns out to be more reliable, even though, for the most part, the pbp will retain its superiority. In that connection, we also consider the truth-tracking potential of a 'sophisticated' variant of the pbp, which is sensitive to the size of the majorities supporting each of the premises

Publishing year

2004

Language

English

Pages

241-258

Publication/Series

Ratio Juris

Volume

17

Issue

2

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

Wiley-Blackwell

Topic

  • Philosophy

Keywords

  • Condorcet premise based-procedure conclusion-based procedure

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 0952-1917