Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 65–103 | Cite as

Jury theorems with multiple alternatives

Original Paper

Abstract

I consider a game in which imperfectly informed jurors vote to select one of several possible choices when there is a natural ordering of the possibilities. Each juror votes for the largest alternative the juror would like to implement, and the alternative that is selected is the largest alternative supported by a given number of jurors. For non-unanimous voting rules, the probability of a mistaken judgment goes to zero as the number of jurors goes to infinity. I also give necessary and sufficient conditions to obtain asymptotic efficiency under unanimous voting rules, and show that unanimous rules may lead to a bias in which moderate outcomes are never chosen.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austen-Smith D, Banks JS (1996) Information aggregation, rationality, and the Condorcet jury theorem. Am Polit Sci Rev 90: 34–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berend D, Paroush D (1998) When is Condorcet’s jury theorem valid?. Soc Choice Welf 15: 481–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg S (1993) Condorcet’s jury theorem dependency among jurors. Soc Choice Welf 10: 87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Condorcet M (1785) Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix. De l’Imprimerie Royale, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. Duggan J, Martinelli C (2001) A Bayesian model of voting in juries. Games Econ Behav 37: 259–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feddersen T, Pesendorfer W (1998) Convicting the innocent: the inferiority of unanimous jury verdicts under strategic voting. Am Polit Sci Rev 92: 23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fey M (2003) A note on the Condorcet jury theorem with supermajority voting rules. Soc Choice Welf 20: 27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerardi D (2000) Jury verdicts and preference diversity. Am Polit Sci Rev 94: 395–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ladha KK (1992) The Condorcet jury theorem, free speech, and correlated votes. Am J Polit Sci 36: 617–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ladha KK (1995) Information pooling through majority-rule voting: Condorcet’s jury theorem with correlated votes. J Econ Behav Organ 26: 353–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Martinelli C (2002) Convergence results for unanimous voting. J Econ Theory 105: 278–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McLennan A (1998) Consequences of the Condorcet jury theorem for beneficial information aggregation by rational agents. Am Polit Sci Rev 92: 413–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meirowitz A (2002) Informative voting and Condorcet jury theorems with a continuum of types. Soc Choice Welf 19: 219–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Milgrom PR (1979) A convergence theorem for competitive bidding with differential information. Econometrica 47: 679–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Milgrom PR (1981) Rational expectations, information acquisition, and competitive bidding. Econometrica 49: 921–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Myerson RB (1998) Extended Poisson games and the Condorcet jury theorem. Games Econ Behav 25: 111–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pesendorfer W, Swinkels JM (1997) The loser’s curse and information aggregation in common value auctions. Econometrica 65: 1247–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Selvin M, Picus L (1987) The debate over jury performance: observations from a recent asbestos case. Rand Institute for Civil Justice, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  19. Wilson RB (1977) A bidding model of perfect competition. Rev Econ Stud 44: 511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wit J (1998) Rational choice and the Condorcet jury theorem. Games Econ Behav 22: 364–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Young HP (1988) Condorcet’s theory of voting. Am Polit Sci Rev 82: 1231–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Young P (1995) Optimal voting rules. J Econ Perspect 9: 51–64Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of BusinessStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations