Advertisement

Theory and Decision

, Volume 71, Issue 4, pp 439–459 | Cite as

Optimal jury design for homogeneous juries with correlated votes

  • Serguei KaniovskiEmail author
  • Alexander Zaigraev
Article

Abstract

In a homogeneous jury, in which each vote is correct with the same probability, and each pair of votes correlates with the same correlation coefficient, there exists a correlation-robust voting quota, such that the probability of a correct verdict is independent of the correlation coefficient. For positive correlation, an increase in the correlation coefficient decreases the probability of a correct verdict for any voting rule below the correlation-robust quota, and increases that probability for any above the correlation-robust quota. The jury may be less competent under the correlation-robust rule than under simple majority rule and less competent under simple majority rule than a single juror alone. The jury is always less competent than a single juror under unanimity rule.

Keywords

Dichotomous choice Condorcet’s Jury Theorem Correlated votes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austen-Smith D., Banks J. S. (1996) Information aggregation, rationality and the Condorcet jury theorem. American Political Science Review 90: 34–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austen-Smith D., Feddersen T. (2006) Deliberation, preference uncertainty and voting rules. American Political Science Review 100: 209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bahadur R.R. (1961) A representation of the joint distribution of responses to n dichotomous items. In: H. Solomon (eds) Studies in item analysis and prediction. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp 158–168Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Yashar R., Paroush J. (2000) A nonasymptotic Condorcet jury theorem. Social Choice and Welfare 17: 189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berend D., Sapir L. (2007) Monotonicity in Condorcet’s jury theorem with dependent voters. Social Choice and Welfare 28: 507–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg S. (1993) Condorcet’s jury theorem, dependency among jurors. Social Choice and Welfare 10: 87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boland P. J. (1989) Majority systems and the Condorcet jury theorem. The Statistician 38: 181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feddersen T., Pesendorfer W. (1996) The swing voters curse. American Political Science Review 86: 408–424Google Scholar
  9. Feddersen T., Pesendorfer W. (1997) Voting behavior and information aggregation in elections with private information. Econometrica 65: 1029–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fey M. (2003) A note on the Condorcet jury theorem with supermajority voting rules. Social Choice and Welfare 20: 27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerardi D., Yariv L. (2007) Deliberate voting. Journal of Economic Theory 134: 317–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerardi D., Yariv L. (2008) Information acquisition in committees. Games and Economic Behavior 51: 436–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayes-Renshaw F., van Aken W., Wallace H. (2006) When and why the EU council of ministers votes explicitly. Journal of Common Market Studies 44: 161–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heard A., Swartz T. (1998) Empirical Banzhaf indices. Public Choice 97: 701–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaniovski, S., Leech, D. (2009). A behavioural power index. Public Choice (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  16. Ladha K. K. (1992) The Condorcet’s jury theorem, free speech and correlated votes. American Journal of Political Science 36: 617–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindley D.V. (1985) Reconciliation of discrete probability distributions. In: Bernando J.M., Degroot D.V., Lindley M.H., Smith A.F.M. (eds) Bayesian statistics 2. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  18. Myerson R. (1998) Extended Poisson games and the Condorcet jury theorem. Games and Economic Behavior 25: 111–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newcombe H., Ross M., Newcombe A. G. (1970) United Nations voting patterns. International Organization 24: 100–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nitzan S., Paroush J. (1984) The significance of independent decisions in uncertain dichotomous choice situations. Theory and Decision 17: 47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Page S. E. (2006) Path dependence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1: 87–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Persico N. (2004) Committee design with endogenous information. Review of Economic Studies 71: 165–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Young H. P. (1988) Condorcet’s theory of voting. American Political Science Review 82: 1231–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO)ViennaAustria
  2. 2.Faculty of Mathematics and Computer ScienceNicolaus Copernicus UniversityToruńPoland

Personalised recommendations