Skip to main content Accessibility help



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.

Hide All
Barberà, S., Gul, F. and Stacchetti, E.. 1993. Generalized Median Voter Schemes and Committees. Journal of Economic Theory 61: 262–89.
Barberà, S., Massóa, J. and Nemeb, A.. 1997. Voting under constraints. Journal of Economic Theory 76 (2): 298321.
Baigent, N. 1987. Preference proximity and anonymous social choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 102 (1): 161–70.
Bossert, W., and Storcken, T.. 1992. Strategy-proofness of social welfare functions: the use of the Kemeny distance between preference orderings. Social Choice and Welfare 9: 345–60.
Bovens, L., and Rabinowicz, W.. 2006. Democratic answers to complex questions–an epistemic perspective. Synthese 150: 131–53.
Brams, S. J., Kilgour, D. M. and Zwicker, W. S.. 1997. Voting on referenda: the separability problem and possible solutions. Electoral Studies 16 (3): 359–7.
Brams, S. J., Kilgour, D. M. and Zwicker, W. S.. 1998. The paradox of multiple elections. Social Choice and Welfare 15: 211–36.
Brennan, G. 2001. Collective Coherence? International Review of Law and Economics 21: 197211.
Chapman, B. 1998. More easily done than said: Rules, reason and rational social choice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18: 293330.
Chapman, B. 2002. Rational Aggregation. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 1: 337–54.
Dietrich, F. 2006. Judgment Aggregation: (Im)Possibility Theorems. Journal of Economic Theory 126: 286–98.
Dietrich, F. 2007. A generalised model of judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 28 (4): 529–65.
Dietrich, F. Forthcoming. The possibility of judgment aggregation on agendas with subjunctive implications. Journal of Economic Theory.
Dietrich, F., and List, C.. 2007a. Arrow's theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 29 (1): 1933.
Dietrich, F., and List, C.. 2007b. Judgment aggregation by quota rules. Journal of Theoretical Politics 19 (4), in press).
Dokow, E., and Holzman, R.. 2005. Aggregation of binary evaluations. Working paper, Technion Israel Institute of Technology.
Dryzek, J., and List, C.. 2003. Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: A reconciliation. British Journal of Political Science 33: 128.
Elster, J. 1986. The Market and the forum. In Foundations of Social Choice Theory, ed. Elster, J. and Hylland, A.. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 103–32.
Ferejohn, J. 2003. Conversability and collective intention. Paper presented at the Common Minds Conference, Australian National University, 24–25 July 2003.
Gärdenfors, P. 2006. An Arrow-like theorem for voting with logical consequences. Economics and Philosophy 22 (2): 181–90.
Gibbard, A. 1973. Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41 (July): 587601.
Goodin, R. E. 1986. Laundering preferences. In Foundations of Social Choice Theory, ed. Elster, J. and Hylland, A.. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 75101.
Grofman, B. 1985. Research note: The accuracy of group majorities for disjunctive and conjunctive decision tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35: 119–23.
van Hees, M. 2007. The limits of epistemic democracy. Social Choice and Welfare 28 (4): 649–66.
Kelly, J. S. 1989. The Ostrogorski Paradox. Social Choice and Welfare 6: 71–6.
Konieczny, S. and Pino-Perez, R.. 2002. Merging information under constraints: a logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation 12: 773808.
Kornhauser, L. A. and Sager, L. G.. 1986. Unpacking the Court. Yale Law Journal 96: 82117.
List, C. 2002a. Two concepts of agreement. The Good Society 11 (1): 72–9.
List, C. 2002b. Discursive path-dependencies. Nuffield College Working Paper in Politics 2002-W15 (9 May 2002).
List, C. 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).
List, C. 2004. A model of path dependence in decisions over multiple propositions. American Political Science Review 98: 495513.
List, C. 2005. The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions. Social Choice and Welfare 24: 332.
List, C. 2006. The discursive dilemma and public reason. Ethics 116: 362402.
List, C. and Pettit, P.. 2002. Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy 18: 89110.
List, C. and Pettit, P.. 2004. Aggregating sets of judgments: Two impossibility results compared. Synthese 140 (1–2): 207–35.
Miller, D. 1992. Deliberative democracy and social choice. Political Studies 40: 5467.
Nehring, K. 2003. Arrow's theorem as a corollary. Economics Letters 80: 379–82.
Nehring, K. and Puppe, C.. 2002. Strategyproof social choice on single-peaked domains: Possibility, impossibility and the space between. Working paper, University of California at Davis.
Nehring, K. and Puppe, C.. 2005. Consistent judgement aggregation: A characterization. Working paper, University of Karlsruhe.
Osherson, D. and Vardi, M.. Forthcoming. Aggregating disparate estimates of chance. Games and Economic Behavior.
Pauly, M. and Hees, M. van. 2006. Logical constraints on judgment aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35: 569–85.
Pettit, P. 2001. Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues 11: 268–99.
Pigozzi, G. 2006. Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation. Synthese 152 (2): 285–98.
Saporiti, A. and Thomé, F.. 2005. Strategy-proofness and single-crossing. Working paper, Queen Mary, University of London.
Satterthwaite, M. 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.
Satterthwaite, M. 1975. Strategyproofness and Arrow's conditions: existence and correspondences for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory 10: 187217.
Schulte, O. 2005. Minimal belief change, Pareto-optimality and logical consequence. Economic Theory 19 (1): 105–44.
Sunstein, C. 1994. Political Conflict and Legal Agreement. Tanner Lectures on Human Values Harvard.
Taylor, A. D. 2002. The Manipulability of Voting Systems. American Mathematical Monthy. 109: 321–37.
Taylor, A. D. 2005. Social Choice and the Mathematics of Manipulation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, R. 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: 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