Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa



Which rules for aggregating judgments on logically connected propositions are manipulable and which not? In this paper, we introduce a preference-free concept of non-manipulability and contrast it with a preference-theoretic concept of strategy-proofness. We characterize all non-manipulable and all strategy-proof judgment aggregation rules and prove an impossibility theorem similar to the Gibbard--Satterthwaite theorem. We also discuss weaker forms of non-manipulability and strategy-proofness. Comparing two frequently discussed aggregation rules, we show that “conclusion-based voting” is less vulnerable to manipulation than “premise-based voting”, which is strategy-proof only for “reason-oriented” individuals. Surprisingly, for “outcome-oriented” individuals, the two rules are strategically equivalent, generating identical judgments in equilibrium. Our results introduce game-theoretic considerations into judgment aggregation and have implications for debates on deliberative democracy.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

S. Barberà , F. Gul and E. Stacchetti . 1993. Generalized Median Voter Schemes and Committees. Journal of Economic Theory 61: 262–89.

S. Barberà , J. Massóa and A. Nemeb . 1997. Voting under constraints. Journal of Economic Theory 76 (2): 298321.

N. Baigent 1987. Preference proximity and anonymous social choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 102 (1): 161–70.

W. Bossert , and T. Storcken . 1992. Strategy-proofness of social welfare functions: the use of the Kemeny distance between preference orderings. Social Choice and Welfare 9: 345–60.

L. Bovens , and W. Rabinowicz . 2006. Democratic answers to complex questions–an epistemic perspective. Synthese 150: 131–53.

S. J. Brams , D. M. Kilgour and W. S. Zwicker . 1997. Voting on referenda: the separability problem and possible solutions. Electoral Studies 16 (3): 359–7.

S. J. Brams , D. M. Kilgour and W. S. Zwicker . 1998. The paradox of multiple elections. Social Choice and Welfare 15: 211–36.

G. Brennan 2001. Collective Coherence? International Review of Law and Economics 21: 197211.

B. Chapman 1998. More easily done than said: Rules, reason and rational social choice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18: 293330.

B. Chapman 2002. Rational Aggregation. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 1: 337–54.

F. Dietrich 2006. Judgment Aggregation: (Im)Possibility Theorems. Journal of Economic Theory 126: 286–98.

F. Dietrich 2007. A generalised model of judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 28 (4): 529–65.

F. Dietrich , and C. List . 2007a. Arrow's theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 29 (1): 1933.

F. Dietrich , and C. List . 2007b. Judgment aggregation by quota rules. Journal of Theoretical Politics 19 (4), in press).

A. Gibbard 1973. Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41 (July): 587601.

B. Grofman 1985. Research note: The accuracy of group majorities for disjunctive and conjunctive decision tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35: 119–23.

van M. Hees 2007. The limits of epistemic democracy. Social Choice and Welfare 28 (4): 649–66.

J. S. Kelly 1989. The Ostrogorski Paradox. Social Choice and Welfare 6: 71–6.

S. Konieczny and R. Pino-Perez . 2002. Merging information under constraints: a logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation 12: 773808.

L. A. Kornhauser and L. G. Sager . 1986. Unpacking the Court. Yale Law Journal 96: 82117.

C. List 2002a. Two concepts of agreement. The Good Society 11 (1): 72–9.

C. List 2003. A Possibility Theorem on Aggregation over Multiple Interconnected Propositions. Mathematical Social Sciences 45: 1–13 (with Corrigendum in Mathematical Social Sciences 52: 109–10).

C. List 2005. The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions. Social Choice and Welfare 24: 332.

C. List 2006. The discursive dilemma and public reason. Ethics 116: 362402.

C. List and P. Pettit . 2004. Aggregating sets of judgments: Two impossibility results compared. Synthese 140 (1–2): 207–35.

D. Miller 1992. Deliberative democracy and social choice. Political Studies 40: 5467.

K. Nehring 2003. Arrow's theorem as a corollary. Economics Letters 80: 379–82.

M. Pauly and M. van Hees . 2006. Logical constraints on judgment aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35: 569–85.

P. Pettit 2001. Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues 11: 268–99.

G. Pigozzi 2006. Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation. Synthese 152 (2): 285–98.

M. Satterthwaite 1975. Strategyproofness and Arrow's conditions: existence and correspondences for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory 10:. Working paper, Queen Mary, University of London.

O. Schulte 2005. Minimal belief change, Pareto-optimality and logical consequence. Economic Theory 19 (1): 105–44.

A. D. Taylor 2002. The Manipulability of Voting Systems. American Mathematical Monthy. 109: 321–37.

A. D. Taylor 2005. Social Choice and the Mathematics of Manipulation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

R. Wilson 1975. On the theory of aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory 10: 8999.

Recommend this journal

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

Economics & Philosophy
  • ISSN: 0266-2671
  • EISSN: 1474-0028
  • URL: /core/journals/economics-and-philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 23 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 111 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st July 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.