Social Choice and Welfare

, 33:559 | Cite as

Geometric models of consistent judgement aggregation

  • Marcus Pivato
Original Paper


Given a set of propositions with unknown truth values, a ‘judgement aggregation function’ is a way to aggregate the personal truth-valuations of a group of voters into some ‘collective’ truth valuation. We introduce the class of ‘quasimajoritarian’ judgement aggregation functions, which includes majority vote, but also includes some functions which use different voting schemes to decide the truth of different propositions. We show that if the profile of individual beliefs satisfies a condition called ‘value restriction’, then the output of any quasimajoritarian function is logically consistent; this directly generalizes the recent work of Dietrich and List (Majority voting on restricted domains. Presented at SCW08; see, 2007b). We then provide two sufficient conditions for value-restriction, defined geometrically in terms of a lattice ordering or a metric structure on the set of individuals and propositions. Finally, we introduce another sufficient condition for consistent majoritarian judgement aggregation, called ‘convexity’. We show that convexity is not logically related to value-restriction.


Aggregation Function Vote Rule Winning Coalition Ultrametric Space Judgement Aggregation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Black DS (1948) On the rationale of group decision-making. J Polit Econ 56: 23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dietrich F, List C (2007a) Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation. Soc Choice Welf 29(1): 19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dietrich F, List C (2007b) Majority voting on restricted domains. Presented at SCW08; see
  4. Eckert D, Klamler C (2008) A geometric approach to judgement aggregation. Presented at SCW08; see
  5. Grandmont J-M (1978) Intermediate preferences and the majority rule. Econometrica 46(2): 317–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Konieczny S, Pino Pérez R (2005) Propositional belief base merging or how to merge beliefs/goals coming from several sources and some links with social choice theory. Eur J Oper Res 160(3): 785–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kornhauser LA, Sager LG (1986) Unpacking the court. Yale Law J 96(1):82–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kornhauser L, Sager L (1993) The one and the many: adjudication in collegial courts. Calif Law Rev 91: 1–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kornhauser L, Sager L (2004) The many as one: integrity and group choice in paradoxical cases. Philos Public Aff 32: 249–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. List C (2003) A possibility theorem on aggregation over multiple interconnected propositions. Math Social Sci 45(1): 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. List C (2006) Corrigendum to: a possibility theorem on aggregation over multiple interconnected propositions. Math Social Sci 52(1): 109–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. List C, Pettit P (2002) Aggregating sets of judgements: an impossibility result. Econ Philos 18: 89–110Google Scholar
  13. List C, Puppe C (2009) Judgement aggregation: a survey. In: Oxford handbook of rational and social choice. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  14. Nehring K, Puppe C (2007a) Efficient and strategy-proof voting rules: a characterization. Games Econ Behav 59(1): 132–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nehring K, Puppe C (2007b) The structure of strategy-proof social choice I: general characterization and possibility results on median spaces. J Econ Theory 135: 269–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pigozzi G (2006) Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation. Synthese 152(2): 285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rothstein P (1990) Order restricted preferences and majority rule. Soc Choice Welf 7(4): 331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rothstein P (1991) Representative voter theorems. Public Choice 72(2–3): 193–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sen AK (1966) A possibility theorem on majority decisions. Econometrica 34(2): 491–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsTrent UniversityPeterboroughCanada

Personalised recommendations