Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Logic and Majority Voting

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To investigate the relationship between logical reasoning and majority voting, we introduce logic with groups Lg in the style of Gentzen’s sequent calculus, where every sequent is indexed by a group of individuals. We also introduce the set-theoretical semantics of Lg, where every formula is interpreted as a certain closed set of groups whose members accept that formula. We present the cut-elimination theorem, and the soundness and semantic completeness theorems of Lg. Then, introducing an inference rule representing majority voting to Lg, we introduce logic with majority voting Lv. Formalizing the discursive paradox in judgment aggregation theory, we show that Lv is inconsistent. Based on the premise-based and conclusion-based approaches to avoid the paradox, we introduce logic with majority voting for axioms Lva, where majority voting is applied only to non-logical axioms as premises to construct a proof in Lg, and logic with majority voting for conclusions Lvc, where majority voting is applied only to the conclusion of a proof in Lg. We show that both Lva and Lvc are syntactically complete and consistent, and we construct collective judgments based on the provability in Lva and Lvc, respectively. Then, we discuss how these systems avoid the discursive paradox.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arrow, K.J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arrow, K.J., Amartya, K.S., & Kotaro S. (2002). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Belhadi, A., Dubois, D., Khellaf-Haned, F., & Prade, H. (2013). Multiple agent possibilistic logic. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 23 (4), 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. de Boer, M., Herzig, A., de Lima, T., & Lorini, E. (2010). Tableaux for acceptance logic. In M. Baldoni, J. Bentahar, M.B. Van Riemsdijk, & J Lloyd (Eds.) Declarative agent languages and technologies VII. DALT 2009, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (Vol. 5948 pp. 107–32). Springer.

  5. Buss, S.R. (1998). An Introduction to Proof Theory. In S.R. Buss (Ed.) Handbook of Proof Theory (pp. 1–78). Elsevier.

  6. Beckmann, A., & Buss, S.R. (2011). Corrected upper bounds for Free-Cut elimination. Theoretical Computer Science, 412(39), 5433–5445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dietrich, F. (2006). Judgment aggregation: (im)possibility theorems. Journal of Economic Theory, 126(1), 286–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dietrich, F. (2014). Scoring rules for judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare, 42, 873–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dietrich, F., & List, C. (2007). Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare, 29(1), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dietrich, F., & List, C. (2007). Judgment aggregation by quota rules: Majority voting generalized. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 19(4), 391–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dietrich, F., & Mongin, P. (2010). The premise-based approach to judgment aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory, 145(2), 562–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Endriss, U. (2018). Judgment aggregation with rationality and feasibility constraints. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2018) pp. 946–954.

  13. Gentzen, G. (1934). Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 39, 176–210, 405–431. English Translation: “Investigations into logical deduction,” in M. E. Szabo (ed.) The collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, 1969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Girard, J.-Y. (1987). Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 50(1), 1–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Girard, J.-Y., Lafont, Y., & Taylor, P. (1989). Proofs and types. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Grossi, D., & Pigozzi, G. (2014). Judgment aggregation: a primer. Synthesis lectures on artificial intelligence and machine learning.

  17. Hakli, R., & Negri, S. (2011). Reasoning about collectively accepted group beliefs. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40(4), 531–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kamide, N. (2002). Substructural logics with mingle. Journal of Logic Language, and Information, 11(2), 227–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. List, C. (2012). The theory of judgment aggregation: an introductory review. Synthese, 187(1), 179–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. List, C., & Polak, B. (2010). Introduction to judgment aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory, 145(2), 441–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. List, C., & Puppe, C. (2009). Judgment aggregation: A survey. In C. List C. Puppe (Eds.) Handbook of rational and social choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  22. Lorini, E., Longin, D., Gaudou, B., & Herzig, A. (2009). The logic of acceptance: Grounding institutions on agents’ attitudes. Journal of Logic and Computation, 19(6), 901–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mongin, P. (2008). Factoring out the impossibility of logical aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory, 141, 100–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Negri, S., & Plato, J. (2001). Structural proof theory. Cambridge: cambridge university press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Negri, S., & Plato, J. (2011). Proof analysis: a contribution to hilbert’s last problem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Negri, S., & Plato, J. (1998). Cut elimination in the presence of axioms. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 4(4), 418–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nehring, K. (2005). The (Im)Possibility of a paretian rational. Economics Working Papers 0068. Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.

  28. Ohnishi, M., & Matsumoto, K. (1964). A system for strict implication. Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science, 2(4), 183–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Okada, M. (2002). A uniform semantic proof for cut-elimination and completeness of various first and higher order logics. Theoretical Computer Science, 281(1-2, 3), 471–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pauly, M. (2007). Axiomatizing collective judgment sets in a minimal logical language. Synthese, 158, 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pauly, M., & van Hees, M. (2006). Logical constraints on judgement aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 35, 569–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pigozzi, G. (2015). The logic of group decisions: Judgment aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44, 755–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pigozzi, G., Slavkovik, M., & van der Torre, L. (2009). A complete conclusion-based procedure for judgment aggregation. In F Rossi A. Tsoukias (Eds.) ADT 2009: algorithmic decision theory, lecture notes in computer science, (Vol. 5783 pp. 1–13). Springer.

  34. Porello, D. (2013). A proof-theoretical view of collective rationality. In Proceedings of the 23rd international joint conference of artificial intelligence (IJCAI 2013), pp. 317–323.

  35. Porello, D. (2017). Judgement aggregation in non-classical logics. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 27(1-2), 106–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Terui, K. (2007). Which structural rules admit cut elimination? an algebraic criterion. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 72(3), 738–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Troelstra, A.S., & Schwichtenberg, H. (2000). Basic Proof Theory, 2nd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nihon University, Tokyo, Japan

    Ryo Takemura

Authors
  1. Ryo Takemura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryo Takemura.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Takemura, R. Logic and Majority Voting. J Philos Logic 51, 347–382 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-021-09631-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-021-09631-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation