Arrow, K. J., Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd edn, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963.Google Scholar

Austen-Smith, D. and Banks, J. S., ‘Information Aggregation, Rationality and the Condorcet Jury Theorem,’ American Political Science Review, 90(1), 1996, 34–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Austen-Smith, D. and Banks, J. S., Positive Political Theory I: Collective Preferences, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Baharad, E. and Nitzan, S., ‘Ameliorating Majority Decisiveness Through Expression of Preference Intensity,’ American Political Science Review, 96(4), 2002, 745–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baharad, E. and Nitzan, S., ‘The Borda Rule, Condorcet Consistency and Condorcet Stability,’ Economic Theory, 22(3), 2003, 685–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baharad, E. and Nitzan, S., ‘Approval Voting Reconsidered,’ Economic Theory, 26(3), 2005a, 619–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baharad, E. and Nitzan, S., ‘The Inverse Plurality Rule – An Axiomatization,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 25(1), 2005b, 173–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baharad, E. and Nitzan, S., ‘On the Selection of the same Winner by all Scoring Rules,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 26(3), 2006, 579–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baharad, E. and Nitzan, S., ‘Scoring Rules: An Alternative Parameterization,’ Economic Theory, 30(1), 2007a, 187–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baharad, E. and Nitzan, S., ‘The Cost of Implementing the Majority Principle: The Golden Voting Rule,’ Economic Theory, 31(1), 2007b, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baigent, N., ‘Metric Rationalization of Social Choice Functions According to Principles of Social Choice,’ Mathematical Social Sciences, 13, 1987, 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barthelemy, J. P. and Monjardet, B., ‘The Median Procedure in Cluster Analysis and Social Choice Theory,’ Mathematical Social Sciences, 1, 1981, 235–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ben-Yashar, R. and Milchtaich, I., ‘First and Second Best Voting Rules in Committees,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 29(3), 2007, 453–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ben-Yashar, R. and Nitzan, S., ‘The Optimal Decision Rule for Fixed-size Committees in Dichotomous Choice Situations: The General Result,’ International Economic Review, 38(1), 1997, 175–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ben-Yashar, R. and Nitzan, S., ‘Quality and Structure of Organizational Decision making,’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 36, 1998, 521–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ben-Yashar, R. and Nitzan, S., ‘The Robustness of Optimal Organizational Architectures: A note on Hierarchies and Polyarchies,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 18(1), 2001a, 151–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ben-Yashar, R. and Nitzan, S., ‘The Invalidity of Condorcet Jury Theorem under Endogenous Decisional Skills,’ Economics of Governance, 2, 2001b, 143–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ben-Yashar, R. and Paroush, J., ‘A non-asymptotic Condorcet Jury Theorem,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 17, 2000, 189–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ben-Yashar, R. and Paroush, J., ‘Optimal Decision Rules for Fixed-size Committees in Polychotomous Choice Situations,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 18(4), 2001, 737–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berend, D. and Harmse, J. E., ‘Expert Rule versus Majority Rule under Partial Information,’ Theory and Decision, 35, 1993, 179–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berg, S., ‘Condorcet's Jury Theorem, Dependency among Voters,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 10, 1993, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bergstrom, T., Blume, L. and Varian, H., ‘On the Private Provision of Public Goods,’ Journal of Public Economics, 29, 1986, 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Black, D., The Theory of Committees and Elections, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.Google Scholar

Blau, J. H., ‘Liberal Values and Independence,’ Review of Economic Studies, 42, 1975, 395–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campbell, D. and Nitzan, S., ‘Social Compromise and Social Metrics,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 3, 1986, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chamberlin, J., ‘Provision of Collective Goods as a Function of Group Size,’ American Political Science Review, 65, 1974, 707–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chebotarev, P. U. and Shamis, E., ‘Characterizations of Scoring Methods for Preference Aggregation,’ Annals of Operations Research, 80, 1998, 299–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clarke, E., ‘Multipart Pricing of Public Goods,’ Public Choice, 11, 1971, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Condorcet, Marquiz, ‘Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Decisions Rendered by a Plurality of Voting,’ in McLean, I. and Urken, A. (eds.), Classics in Social Choice, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1995 (original 1785).Google Scholar

Cornes, R. and Sandler, T., The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods and Club Goods, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google Scholar

Dietrich, F., ‘Judgment Aggregation: (Im)possibility Theorems,’ Journal of Economic Theory, 126(1), 2006, 286–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dietrich, F., ‘A Generalized Model of Judgment Aggregation,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 28(4), 2007, 529–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dietrich, F. and List, C., ‘Arrow's Theorem in Judgment Aggregation,’ Social Choice and Welfare, Springer 29, 2007, 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dodgson, C. L., A Method of Taking Votes on More than Two Issues, Third Pamphlet, 1876 (Reprinted in Black (1958) pp. 224–34).

Farkas, D. and Nitzan, S., ‘The Borda Rule and Pareto Stability: A Comment,’ Econometrica, 47, 1979, 1305–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, A., Welfare Economics and Social Choice Theory, Boston: Kluwer, 1984.Google Scholar

Fey, M., ‘A Note on Condorcet Jury Theorem with Supermajority Voting Rules,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 20, 2003, 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fishburn, P. C., The Theory of Social Choice, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973.Google Scholar

Gibbard, A., ‘Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result,’ Econometrica, 41, 1973, 587–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibbard, A., ‘A Pareto-Consistent Libertarian Claim,’ Journal of Economic Theory, 7, 1974, 388–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gradstein, M. and Nitzan, S., ‘Binary Participation and Incremental Provision of Public Goods,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 7, 1990, 171–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gradstein, M., Nitzan, S. and Paroush, J., ‘Collective Decision Making and the Limits on the Organization's Size,’ Public Choice, 66, 1990, 279–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Groves, T., ‘Incentives in Teams,’ Econometrica, 41, 1973, 617–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hammond, P. J., ‘Equity, Arrow's Condition and Rawls’ Difference Principle,' Econometrica, 44(4), 1976; 793–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harel, A. and Nitzan, S., ‘The Libertarian Resolution of the Paretian-Liberal Paradox,’ Journal of Economics, 1987, 337–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harsanyi, J. C., ‘Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility,’ Journal of Political Economy, 63, 1955, 309–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kelly, J. S., Social Choice Theory – An Introduction, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kemeny, J. G., ‘Mathematics without Numbers,’ Daedalus, 88, 1959, 577–91.Google Scholar

Kemeny, J. G. and Snell, J. L., Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences, New York: Blaisdell, 1962.Google Scholar

Koh, W., ‘Optimal Sequential Decision Architectures and the Robustness of Hierarchies and Polyarchies,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 24(3), 2005, 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ladha, K. K., ‘Condorcet's Jury Theorem in Light of de Finetti's Theorem, Majority Rule with Correlated Votes,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 10, 1993, 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ladha, K. K., ‘Information Pooling through Majority-Rule voting: Condorcet's Jury Theorem with Correlated Votes,’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 26, 1995, 353–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehrer, E. and Nitzan, S., ‘Some General Results on the Metric Rationalization for Social Decision Rules,’ Journal of Economic Theory, 37(1), 1985, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lindahl, E., ‘Just Taxation – A Positive Solution,’ in Musgrave, R. A. and Marshall, A. T. (eds.), Classics in the Theory of Public Finance, London: Macmillan, 1958 (original 1919).Google Scholar

List, C. and Petit, P., ‘Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result,’ Economics and Philosophy, 18, 2002, 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

May, K., ‘Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision,’ Econometrica, 1952, 680–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moulin, H., The Strategy of Social Choice, Paris: Ecole Polytechnique, 1981.Google Scholar

Mueller, D. C., Public Choice III, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, revised edn, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nash, J. F., ‘The Bargaining Problem,’ Econometrica, 18, 1950, 155–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nitzan, S., ‘Linear and Lexicographic Orders, Majority Rule and Equilibrium,’ International Economic Review, 17(1), 1976, 213–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nitzan, S., ‘Some Measures of Closeness to Unanimity and Their Implications,’ Theory and Decision, 13, 1981, 129–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nitzan, S., ‘The Vulnerability of Point Voting Schemes to Preference Variation and Strategic Manipulation,’ Public Choice, 47(2), 1985, 349–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nitzan, S., ‘More on the Preservation of Preference Proximity and Anonymous Social Choice,’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(1), 1989, 187–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nitzan, S., ‘The Likelihood of Inefficiency, a Prisoners’ Dilemma and Sub-optimality in Games of Binary Voluntary Provision of Public Goods,' Social Choice and Welfare, 11, 1994, 157–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nitzan, S. and Paroush, J., ‘Investment in Human Capital and Social Self Protection under Uncertainty,’ International Economic Review, 21, 1980, 547–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nitzan, S. and Paroush, J., ‘Optimal Decision Rules in Uncertain Dichotomous Choice Situations,’ International Economic Review, 23(2), 1982, 289–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nitzan, S. and Paroush, J., Collective Decision Making: An Economic Outlook, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar

Nitzan, S. and Rubinstein, A., ‘A Further Characterization of Borda Ranking Method,’ Public Choice, 36, 1981, 153–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nurmi, H., Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal with Them, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nurmi, H., Voting Procedures under Uncertainty, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olson, M., The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.Google Scholar

Ordeshook, P. C., Game Theory and Political Theory: An introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Owen, G., Grofman, B. and Feld, S., ‘Proving a Distribution Free Generalization of the Condorcet Jury Theorem,’ Mathematical Social Sciences, 17, 1989, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paroush, J., ‘Stay Away from Fair Coins: A Condorcet Jury Theorem,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 15, 1998, 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paroush, J. and Karotkin, D., ‘Robustness of Optimal Majority Rules Over Teams with Changing Size,’ Social Choice and Welfare, 6, 1989, 127–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rawls, J. A., Theory of Justice, Oxford: Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar

Reny, P. J., ‘Arrow's Theorem and the Gibbard–Satterthwaite Theorem: A Unified Approach,’ Economics Letters, 70(1), 2001, 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Richelson, J. T., ‘A Characterization Result for the Plurality Rule,’ Journal of Economic Theory, 19, 1978, 548–50.Google Scholar

Sah, R. K. and Stiglitz, J., ‘Committees, Hierarchies and Polyarchies,’ The Economic Journal, 98, 1988, 451–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Satterthwaite, M. A., ‘Strategy Proofness and Arrow's Conditions,’ Journal of Economic Theory, 10, 1975, 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sen, A., Collective Choice and Social Welfare, San Francisco: Holden Day Inc., 1970.Google Scholar

Sen, A., ‘Social Choice Theory: A Reexamination,’ Econometrica, 45, 1977a, 53–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sen, A.,‘On Weights and Measures: Informational Constraints in Social Choice Analysis,’ Econometrica, 45, 1977b, 1539–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sen, A., ‘Social Choice Theory,’ in Arrow, K. J. and Intriligator, M. (eds), Handbook of Mathematical Economics, vol. III, Amsterdam: North Holland, 1986.Google Scholar

Shapley, L. and Grofman, B., ‘Optimizing Group Judgmental Accuracy in the Presence of Interdependencies,’ Public Choice 43, 1984, 329–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Varian, H. R., Microeconomic Analysis, 3rd edn, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992.Google Scholar

Wriglesworth, J. L., Libertarian Conflicts in Social Choice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar

Yaari, M. E., ‘Edgeworth, Shapley, Nash: Theories of Distributive Justice Re-Examined,’ Journal of Economic Theory, 24, 1981, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Young, H. P., ‘An Axiomatization of Borda's Rule,’ Journal of Economic Theory, 9, 1974, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar