Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T08:53:26.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EPISTEMIC DEMOCRACY WITH DEFENSIBLE PREMISES1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2013

Franz Dietrich  and
Kai Spiekermann
Franz Dietrich
Affiliation:
CNRS, France and University of East Anglia, UKpost@franzdietrich.net
Kai Spiekermann
Affiliation:
London School of Economics, UKk.spiekermann@lse.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The contemporary theory of epistemic democracy often draws on the Condorcet Jury Theorem to formally justify the ‘wisdom of crowds’. But this theorem is inapplicable in its current form, since one of its premises – voter independence – is notoriously violated. This premise carries responsibility for the theorem's misleading conclusion that ‘large crowds are infallible’. We prove a more useful jury theorem: under defensible premises, ‘large crowds are fallible but better than small groups’. This theorem rehabilitates the importance of deliberation and education, which appear inessential in the classical jury framework. Our theorem is related to Ladha's (1993) seminal jury theorem for interchangeable (‘indistinguishable’) voters based on de Finetti's Theorem. We also prove a more general and simpler such jury theorem.

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 87 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Kai Spiekermann would like to emphasize that the formal results in this paper are the work of Franz Dietrich.

References

REFERENCES

Austen-Smith, D. and Banks, J.. 1996. Information aggregation, rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem. American Political Science Review 90: 34–45.Google Scholar
Ben-Yashar, R. and Paroush, J.. 2000. A nonasymptotic Condorcet jury theorem. Social Choice and Welfare 17: 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, S. 1993. Condorcet's jury theorem: dependency among voters. Social Choice and Welfare 10: 87–95.Google Scholar
Black, D. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boland, P. J. 1989. Majority systems and the Condorcet jury theorem. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series D (The Statistician) 38: 181–189.Google Scholar
Boland, P. J., Proschan, F. and Tong, Y.. 1989. Modelling dependence in simple and indirect majority systems. Journal of Applied Probability 26: 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, L. and Rabinowicz, W.. 2006. Democratic answers to complex questions – an epistemic perspective. Synthese 150: 131–153.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1986. An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics 97: 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorcet, M. D. 1785. Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix.Google Scholar
Coughlan, P. J. 2000. In defense of unanimous jury verdicts: mistrials, communication and strategic voting. American Political Science Review 94: 375–394.Google Scholar
de Finetti, B. 1937. La prévision: ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives. Annales de l'institut Henri Poincaré 7: 1–68.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. 2008. The premises of Condorcet's jury theorem are not simultaneously justified. Episteme 58: 56–73.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C.. 2004. A model of jury decisions where all jurors have the same evidence. Synthese 142: 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, D. M. 1994. Opinion leaders, independence, and Condorcet's Jury Theorem. Theory and Decision 36: 131–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, D. M. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Estlund, D., Waldron, J., Grofman, B. and Feld, S. L.. 1989. Democratic theory and the public interest: Condorcet and Rousseau revisited. American Political Science Review 83: 1317–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddersen, T. and Pesendorfer, W.. 1998. Convicting the innocent: the inferiority of unanimous jury verdicts under strategic voting. American Political Science Review 92: 23–36.Google Scholar
Gaus, G. 1997. Does democracy reveal the voice of the people? Four takes on Rousseau. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75: 141–162.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. and Spiekermann, K.. 2012. Epistemic aspects of representative government. European Political Science Review 4: 303–325.Google Scholar
Grofman, B. and Feld, S. L.. 1988. Rousseau's general will: A Condorcetian perspective. American Political Science Review 82: 567–576.Google Scholar
Grofman, B., Owen, G. and Feld, S. L.. 1983. Thirteen theorems in search of the truth. Theory and Decision 15: 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaniovski, S. 2010. Aggregation of correlated votes and Condorcet's Jury Theorem. Theory and Decision 69: 453–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladha, K. K. 1992. The Condorcet's Jury Theorem, free speech, and correlated votes. American Journal of Political Science 36: 617–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladha, K. K. 1993. Condorcet's jury theorem in light of de Finetti's theorem. Social Choice and Welfare 10: 69–85.Google Scholar
Ladha, K. K. 1995. Information pooling through majority-rule voting: Condorcet's jury theorem with correlated votes. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 26: 353–372.Google Scholar
List, C. 2005. The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions. Social Choice and Welfare 24: 3–32.Google Scholar
List, C. and Goodin, R. E.. 2001. Epistemic democracy: generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem. Journal of Political Philosophy 9: 277–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitzan, S. and Paroush, J.. 1984. The significance of independent decisions in uncertain dichotomous choice situations. Theory and Decision 17: 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, G., Grofman, B. and Feld, S. L.. 1989. Proving a distribution-free generalization of the Condorcet Jury Theorem. Mathematical Social Sciences 17: 1–16.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1956. The Direction of Time. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rheingold, H. 2002. Smart Mobs: The next Social Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
Romeijn, J. and Atkinson, D.. 2011. A Condorcet jury theorem for unknown juror competence. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 10: 237–262.Google Scholar
Shapley, L. and Grofman, B.. 1984. Optimizing group judgmental accuracy in the presence of interdependencies. Public Choice 43: 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerlad, F. and McLean, I.. 1989. The Political Theory of Condorcet, Social Studies Faculty Centre Working Paper, Oxford University, 1/89.Google Scholar
Spiekermann, K. R. and Goodin, R. E.. 2012. Courts of many minds. British Journal of Political Science 12: 555–571.Google Scholar
Spirtes, P., Glymour, C. and Scheines, R.. 1993. Causation, Prediction, and Search. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Surowiecki, J. 2004. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter than the Few and how Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations. London: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Vermeule, A. 2009. Many minds arguments in legal theory. Journal of Legal Analysis 1: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar