Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem

  • David Austen-Smith (a1) and Jeffrey S. Banks (a1)
Abstract

The Condorcet Jury Theorem states that majorities are more likely than any single individual to select the “better” of two alternatives when there exists uncertainty about which of the two alternatives is in fact preferred. Most extant proofs of this theorem implicitly make the behavioral assumption that individuals vote “sincerely” in the collective decision making, a seemingly innocuous assumption, given that individuals are taken to possess a common preference for selecting the better alternative. However, in the model analyzed here we find that sincere behavior by all individuals is not rational even when individuals have such a common preference. In particular, sincere voting does not constitute a Nash equilibrium. A satisfactory rational choice foundation for the claim that majorities invariably “do better” than individuals, therefore, has yet to be derived.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Austen-Smith, David. 1990. “Information Transmission in Debate.” American Journal of Political Science 34:124–52.
Berg, Sven. 1993. “Condorcet's Jury Theorem, Dependency among Jurors.” Social Choice and Welfare 10:8796.
Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Condorcet, Marquis de. [1785] 1994. Essai sur l'application de l'analyse a la probabilité des decisions rendues a la pluralité des voix. Trans. McLean, Iain and Hewitt, Fiona. Paris.
Feddersen, Tim, and Pesendorfer, Wolfgang. N.d. “The Swing Voter's Curse.” American Economic Review. Forthcoming.
Feddersen, Tim, and Pesendorfer, Wolfgang. 1995. “Voting Behavior and Information Aggregation in Elections with Private Information.” Northwestern University. Typescript.
Grofman, Bernard, and Feld, Scott. 1988. “Rousseau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective.” American Political Science Review 82:567–76.
Ladha, Krish. 1992. “The Condorcet Jury Theorem, Free Speech, and Correlated Votes.” American Journal of Political Science 36:617–34.
Ladha, Krish. 1993. “Condorcet's Jury Theorem in the Light of de Finetti's Theorem: Majority Rule with Correlated Votes.” Social Choice and Welfare 10:6986.
McLean, Iain, and Hewitt, Fiona. 1994. Condorcet: Foundations of Social Choice and Political Theory. Brookfleld, VT: Elgar.
Miller, Nicholas. 1986. “Information, Electorates, and Democracy: Some Extensions and Interpretations of the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” In Information Pooling and Group Decision Making, ed. Grofman, B. and Owen, G.. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Myerson, Roger. 1994. Extended Poisson Games and the Condorcet Jury Theorem. Discussion Paper 1103, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science, Northwestern University.
Nitzan, Shmuel, and Paroush, Jacob. 1985. Collective Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paroush, Jacob. 1994. “Stay Away from Fair Coins; or, The Correct Condorcet Jury Theorem.” Bar-Ilan University. Typescript.
Young, Peyton. 1988. “Condorcet's Theory of Voting.” American Political Science Review 82:1231–44.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed