IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/van/wpaper/vuecon-sub-00008.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cognitive Diversity, Binary Decisions, and Epistemic Democracy

Author

Listed:
  • John A Weymark

    (Vanderbilt University)

Abstract

In Democratic Reason, Hélène Landemore has built a case for the epistemic virtues of inclusive deliberative democracy based on the cognitive diversity of the group engaged in making collective decisions. She supports her thesis by appealing to the Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem of Lu Hong and Scott Page. In practice, deliberative assemblies often restrict attention to situations with only two options. In this paper, it is shown that it is not possible to satisfy the assumptions of the Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem when decisions are binary. The relevance of this theorem for democratic decision-making in non-binary situations is also considered.

Suggested Citation

  • John A Weymark, 2014. "Cognitive Diversity, Binary Decisions, and Epistemic Democracy," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 14-00008, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:van:wpaper:vuecon-sub-00008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/VUECON/VUECON-14-00008.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bozbay, İrem & Dietrich, Franz & Peters, Hans, 2014. "Judgment aggregation in search for the truth," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 571-590.
    2. Marco LiCalzi & Oktay Surucu, 2012. "The Power of Diversity over Large Solution Spaces," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(7), pages 1408-1421, July.
    3. Austen-Smith, David & Banks, Jeffrey S., 1996. "Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(1), pages 34-45, March.
    4. Scott E. Page, 2007. "Prologue to The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies," Introductory Chapters, in: The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies, Princeton University Press.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Clippel, Geoffroy & Eliaz, Kfir, 2015. "Premise-based versus outcome-based information aggregation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 34-42.
    2. Irem Bozbay, 2019. "Truth-tracking judgment aggregation over interconnected issues," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(2), pages 337-370, August.
    3. Antony Millner & Hélène Ollivier, 2016. "Beliefs, Politics, and Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 226-244.
    4. Bozbay, Irem & Peters, Hans, 2019. "Information aggregation with a continuum of types," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 46-49.
    5. Ahn, David S. & Oliveros, Santiago, 2014. "The Condorcet Jur(ies) Theorem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 841-851.
    6. Franz Dietrich, 2014. "Scoring rules for judgment aggregation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(4), pages 873-911, April.
    7. repec:esx:essedp:743 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Irem Bozbay, 2015. "Truth-Tracking Judgment Aggregation Over Interconnected Issues," School of Economics Discussion Papers 0916, School of Economics, University of Surrey.
    9. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Leif Danziger, 2014. "On the optimal composition of committees," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(4), pages 973-980, December.
    10. Mitri Kitti, 2016. "Axioms for centrality scoring with principal eigenvectors," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(3), pages 639-653, March.
    11. Daniels, David P. & Neale, Margaret A. & Greer, Lindred L., 2017. "Spillover bias in diversity judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 92-105.
    12. Simona Fabrizi & Steffen Lippert & Addison Pan & Matthew Ryan, 2022. "A theory of unanimous jury voting with an ambiguous likelihood," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(3), pages 399-425, October.
    13. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    14. Meirowitz, Adam, 2005. "Deliberative Democracy or Market Democracy: Designing Institutions to Aggregate Preferences and Information," Papers 03-28-2005, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    15. Gabrielle Demange, 2018. "New electoral systems and old referendums," PSE Working Papers hal-01852206, HAL.
    16. Masaki Miyashita, 2021. "Premise-based vs conclusion-based collective choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(2), pages 361-385, August.
    17. Gerring, John & Thacker, Strom C. & Lu, Yuan & Huang, Wei, 2015. "Does Diversity Impair Human Development? A Multi-Level Test of the Diversity Debit Hypothesis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 166-188.
    18. Dindo, Pietro & Massari, Filippo, 2020. "The wisdom of the crowd in dynamic economies," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(4), November.
    19. Bhattacharya, Sourav & Duffy, John & Kim, Sun-Tak, 2014. "Compulsory versus voluntary voting: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 111-131.
    20. Lirong Xia, 2020. "How Likely Are Large Elections Tied?," Papers 2011.03791, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    21. Fifić, Mario & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2014. "Are two interviewers better than one?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1771-1779.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    epistemic democracy; Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem;

    JEL classification:

    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making
    • Y8 - Miscellaneous Categories - - Related Disciplines

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:van:wpaper:vuecon-sub-00008. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/wparchive/index.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.