Abstract
The Condorcet Jury Theorem was the first and remains a central model of collective decision making in both social and political theory. Advanced as an argument for small group or “jury” decision processes over those of individual experts, its axioms and conclusions have been a subject of rigorous debate in recent years. Those considerations have typically been mathematical and theoretical, however, rather than concrete and descriptive. This paper considers the applicability of the Jury Theorem in light of data collected in a series of focus groups organized at The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto, Canada) to review organ transplant eligibility criteria. With each of four focus groups we used the Analytic Hierarchy Process to elicit views of hospital members and users on the relative importance of criteria commonly used to define organ transplant eligibility. Analysis of the priority measures obtained provided clear insights into issues of consensus, the role of experts, and the process of collective decision making by heterogeneous juries. The conclusions may be of use to those interested in democratic process and social theory in all contexts - legal, moral, and political - involving small group decision making.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Austen-Smith, D., and J. Banks. (1996). “Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem,” American Political Science Review 90, 34–35.
Berg, S. (1996). “Condorcet's Jury Theorem and the Reliability of Majority Voting,” Group Decision and Negotiation 5(3), 229–238.
Berg, S., and H. Nurmi. (1996). “Group Decision Quality and Social Choice Theory,” Group Decision and Negotiation 5(3), 207–209.
Berg, S. (1994). “Evaluation of Some Weighted Majority Decision Rules Under Dependent Voting,” Mathematical Social Sciences 28, 71–83.
Boland, P. J. (1989). “Majority Systems and the Condorcet Jury Theorem,” The Statistician 38, 181–189.
Caldwell, Lynton K. (1996). “Science Assumptions and Misplaced Certainty in Natural Resources and Environmental Problem Solving,” in John Lemons (ed.), Scientific Uncertainty and Environmental Problem Solving. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 394–42, 395.
Cook, R. D., S. Staschak, W. T. Green, and L. G. Vargas. (1989). “A Method to Allocate Livers for Orthotopic Transplantation: An Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process”. Proceedings of the International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Bangkok, December 6-8.
Corley, M. E., and G. Sneed. (1994). “Criteria in the Selection of Organ Transplant Recipients,” Heart and Lung 23(6), 453–454.
Dawson, C. (1995, March 28) “Supporters Rally for Teen's Transplant,” Calgary Herald, B3.
Donohue, T. (1995, March 22) “Morally Outrageous,” Ottawa Citizen, A12.
Delsohn, B., and T. Philip. (1995, August 11). “Activist Takes on Fight for her Life,” Sacramento Bee, A1.
Edwards, W., and B. F. Hutton. (1994). “SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60, 306–325.
Estrin, R. (1996, November 15). “Liver Transplant Policy to Favor Patients Most Likely to Survive,” The Washington Post, A3.
Grofman, B., and S. L. Feld. (1988). “Rousseau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective,” American Political Science Review 82(2), 567–576.
Hamalainen, Raimo (Personal communication to Ridgley). Address: Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland. E-mail: Raimo@hut.fi.
Hoppe, A. (1995, June 16). “Mickey Mantle's Lucky Liver,” San Francisco Chronicle, A29.
Hubert, C. (1997, May 25). “Transplant Pioneer Loses Battle for Life,” Sacramento Bee, A3.
Koch, T. (1988). The Limits of Principle: Deciding Who Lives and What Dies. Westport, CT: Praeger Books, 1998.
Koch, T., and M. Rowell. (1998). “The Dream of Consensus: Finding Common Ground in a Bioethical Context,” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19(5).
Koch, T., and M. Rowell. (1997). “A Pilot Study on Transplant Eligibility Criteria: Valuing the Stories in Numbers,” Pediatric Nursing 23(2), 160–166.
Koch, T. (1996). “Normative and Prescriptive Criteria: The Efficacy of Organ Transplantation Allocation Protocols,” Theoretical Medicine 17(1), 75–93.
Kolata, G. (1996, November 15). “In Shift, Prospects for Survival will Decide Liver Transplants,” The New York Times, A1, A26.
Kolata, G. (1995, June 11). “Transplants, Morality, and Mickey Mantle,” New York Times, Section 4, 5.
Majeske, R. A. (1995, August 5). “Criteria for Transplant Candidate Selection,” BIOMED-L conference list.
Miller, N. R. (1996). “Information, Individual Errors, and Collective Performance: Empirical Evidence on the Condorcet Jury Theorem,” Group Decision and Negotiation, 5(3), 211–218.
Nitzan, S., and J. Paroush. (1985). Collective Decision Making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Also quoted in Berg (1994).
Obrisch, M. E., and J. L. Levenson. (1991). “Psychosocial Evaluation of Heart Transplant Candidates: An International Survey of Process, Criteria, and Outcomes,” Journal of Heart Lung Transplant 10, 948–955.
Ott, B. (1997). “Commentary on Koch and Rowell Article: Changes in Liver Transplantation,” Pediatric Nursing 23(2), 167–168.
Pueschel, S. M. (1989). “Ethical Considerations in the Life of a Child with Down Syndrome,” Issues in Law and Medicine 5(1), 87–99.
Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill.
Schmidt, Frederick F. (1985). “Consensus, Respect, and Weighted Averaging,” Synthese 62, 25–46.
Shapley, L., and B. Grofman. (1984). “Optimizing Group Judgmental Accuracy in the Presence of Interdependencies,” Public Choice 43, 329–343.
Wood, L. A., and R. O. Kroger. (1995). “Discourse Analysis in Research on Aging,” Canadian Journal on Aging 14(1), 82–99.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koch, T., Ridgley, M. The Condorcet's Jury Theorem in a Bioethical Context: The Dynamics of Group Decision Making. Group Decision and Negotiation 9, 379–392 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008712331820
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008712331820