, Volume 150, Issue 1, pp 131–153 | Cite as

Democratic Answers to Complex Questions – An Epistemic Perspective

  • Luc Bovens
  • Wlodek Rabinowicz
Research Article


This paper addresses a problem for theories of epistemic democracy. In a decision on a complex issue which can be decomposed into several parts, a collective can use different voting procedures: Either its members vote on each sub-question and the answers that gain majority support are used as premises for the conclusion on the main issue (premise based-procedure, pbp), or the vote is conducted on the main issue itself (conclusion-based procedure, cbp). The two procedures can lead to different results. We investigate which of these procedures is better as a truth-tracker, assuming that there exists a true answer to be reached. On the basis of the Condorcet jury theorem, we show that the pbp is universally superior if the objective is to reach truth for the right reasons. If one instead is after truth for whatever reasons, right or wrong, there will be cases in which the cbp is more reliable, even though, for the most part, the pbp still is to be preferred.


Discursive dilemma Condorcet jury theorem Judgment aggregation Voting procedures Epistemic democracy Deliberative democracy Pettit 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Borland, P.J. 1989Majority systems and the Condorcet Jury TheoremStatistician38181189Google Scholar
  2. Brennan, G. 2001Collective coherenceInternational Review of Law and Economics21197211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapman, B. 1998aLaw, incommensurability, and conceptually sequenced argumentUniversity of Pennsylvania Law Review14614871582Google Scholar
  4. Chapman, B. 1998bMore easily done than said: Rules, reason and rational Social choiceOxford Journal of Legal Studies18293329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. 1986An epistemic conception of democracyEthics972638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Condorcet, J.A. de (1785). Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix, l’Imprimerie Royale, Paris, partly translated into English in McLean and Urken (1995).Google Scholar
  7. Elster, J. (Ed.) (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Estlund, D. 1990Democracy without preferencePhilosophical review49397424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Estlund, D. 1993Making truth safe for democracyCopp, DavidHampton, JeanRoemer, John E. eds. The Idea of DemocracyCambridge University PressNew York71100Google Scholar
  10. Estlund, D. 1994Opinion leaders, independence and Condorcet’s Jury TheoremTheory and Decision36131162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Estlund, D. (1997). Beyond fairness and deliberation: The epistemic dimension of democratic authority. Deliberative Democracy, In: James Bohman and Willian Rehg (Eds.), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 173–204.Google Scholar
  12. Estlund, D. 1998The insularity of the reasonable: Why political liberalism must admit the truthEthics108252275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldman, A.I. 1979What is justified beliefPappas, G.S. eds. Justification and KnowledgeReidelDordrecht123Google Scholar
  14. Grofman, B., Owen, G., Feld, S.L. 1983Thirteen theorems in search of the truthTheory and Decision15261278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. List, C., Goodin, R.E. 2001Epistemic democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury TheoremJournal of Political Philosophy9277306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kornhauser, L.A. 1992aModelling collegial courts. I. path-dependenceInternational Review of Law and Economics12169185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kornhauser, L.A. 1992bModelling collegial courts. II. Legal doctrineJournal of Law, Economics and Organization8441470Google Scholar
  18. Kornhauser, L.A., Sager, L.G. 1986Unpacking the courtYale Law Journal9692117Google Scholar
  19. Kornhauser, L.A., Sager, L.G. 1993The one and the many: Adjudication in collegial courtsCalifornia Law Review81159Google Scholar
  20. McLean I., Urken, A.B. (translators and editors) (1995). Classics of social choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  21. Owen, G., Grofman, B., Feld, S.L. 1989Proving a distribution-free generalization of the Condorcet Jury TheoremMathematical Social Sciences17116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pearl, J. 1988Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference2Morgan KaufmannSan Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. Pettit P. (2001). Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues 11 (supplement 1 of Nous 35), 268–295.Google Scholar
  24. Pettit, P., & Rabinowicz, W. (2001). The Jury Theorem and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues, 11(supplement 1 of Nous 35), appendix to Pettit (2001), pp. 295–299.Google Scholar
  25. Rousseau, J.-J. 1997 (1762). The social contract. In: Victor Gourevich and Quentin Skinner (Eds.), The ‘Social Contract’ and other later political writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.London School of Economics, Department of PhilosophyLogic and Scientific MethodLondonUK

Personalised recommendations