A note on the Condorcet jury theorem for couples

Theory and Decision 83 (3):355-364 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A jury and two valid options are given. Each agent of the jury picks exactly one of these options. The option with the most votes will be chosen by the jury. In the N-couple model of Althöfer and Thiele, the jury consisted of 2N agents. These agents form N independent couples, with dependencies within the couples. The authors assumed that the agents who form a couple have the same competence level. In this note, we relax this assumption by allowing different competence levels within the couples. We show that the theoretical results of Althöfer and Thiele remain valid under this relaxation.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,505

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A Condorcet jury theorem for couples.Ingo Althöfer & Raphael Thiele - 2016 - Theory and Decision 81 (1):1-15.
Introducing difference into the Condorcet jury theorem.Peter Stone - 2015 - Theory and Decision 78 (3):399-409.
The persuasiveness of democratic majorities.Robert E. Goodin & David Estlund - 2004 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 3 (2):131-142.
Epistemic Democracy with Defensible Premises.Franz Dietrich & Kai Spiekermann - 2013 - Economics and Philosophy 29 (1):87--120.
Jury Theorems.Franz Dietrich & Kai Spiekermann - 2019 - In Miranda Fricker, Peter Graham, David Henderson & Nikolaj Jang Pedersen (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology. New York, USA: Routledge.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-10-25

Downloads
16 (#1,194,266)

6 months
5 (#1,047,105)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

A Condorcet jury theorem for couples.Ingo Althöfer & Raphael Thiele - 2016 - Theory and Decision 81 (1):1-15.

Add more references