A (mainly epistemic) case for multiple-vote majority rule

Episteme

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 63-79

  Bradley, Richard ^a   Thompson, Christopher ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010637418     PISSN: 17423600     EISSN: 17500117     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/epi.2011.5     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Ben-Yashar R., and Nitzan S. 1997. ‘The Optimal Decision Rule for Fixed-Size Committees in Dichotomous Choice Situations: The General Result.’ International Economic Review, 38: 175–86.
2. Bradley R. W. 2006. ‘Taking Advantage of Difference of Opinion.’ Episteme, 3(3): 141–55.
3. Cohen J. 1986. ‘An Epistemic Conception of Democracy.’ Ethics, 97: 26–38
4. Dietrich F. 2006. ‘General Representation of Epistemically Optimal Procedures.’ Social Choice and Welfare, 26: 263–83.
5. Estlund D. 1997. ‘Beyond Fairness and Deliberation: The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority’, pp.173–204. In Bohman J. and Rehg W. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Grofman B., Owen F., and Feld S. L. 1983. ‘Thirteen Theorems in Search of the Truth.’ Theory and Decision, 15: 261–78
7. Kruger J., and Dunning D. 2009. ‘Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognising One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments.’ Psychology, 1: 30–46.
8. List C. 2008. ‘Distributed Cognition: A Perspective from Social Choice Theory.’ In Albert M., Schmidtchen D. and Voigt S. (eds), Scientific Competition: Theory and Policy, Conferences on New Political Economy, 24. Tuebingen; Mohr Siebeck.
9. Owen G., Grofman B., and Feld S. L. 1989. ‘Proving a Distribution-Free Generalization of the Condorcet Jury Theorem.’ Mathematical Social Sciences, 17: 1–16.