Skip to main content
Log in

Communication compatible voting rules

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We reassess the possibility of full information pooling in a Condorcet jury environment featuring heterogeneous and privately known preference types. We find that in general, with uncorrelated preference types, only very limited heterogeneity is compatible with full pooling. We provide a sufficient condition, based on a simple measure of preference misalignment, under which the set of voting rules compatible with full pooling is at most a singleton. As a caveat to any simplistic conclusions, we identify a case in which an increase in heterogeneity (i.e. polarization) systematically generates the possibility of full pooling. Increased jury size, in contrast, is shown to always render full pooling more difficult.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Austen-Smith D., Feddersen T.J. (2006) Deliberation, preference uncertainty and voting rules. American Political Science Review 100(2): 209–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Coughlan P.J. (2000) In defense of unanimous jury verdicts: Mistrials, communication, and strategic voting. American Political Science Review 94(2): 375–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gerardi D., Yariv L. (2007) Deliberative voting. Journal of Economic Theory 134(1): 317–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Meirowitz A. (2007) In defense of exclusionary deliberation: Communication and voting with private beliefs and values. Journal of Theoretical Politics 19(3): 301–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Milgrom P., Roberts J. (1986) Relying on the information of interested parties. Rand Journal of Economics 17(1): 18–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schulte E. (2010) Information aggregation and preference heterogeneity in committees. Theory and Decision 69(1): 97–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Weelden R. (2008) Deliberation rules and voting. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3(1): 83–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Visser B., Swank O.H. (2007) On committees of experts. Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(1): 337–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Thordal-Le Quement.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thordal-Le Quement, M. Communication compatible voting rules. Theory Decis 74, 479–507 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-012-9329-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-012-9329-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation