Deliberation, Preference Uncertainty, and Voting Rules

A deliberative committee is a group of at least two individuals who first debate about what alternative to choose prior to these same individuals voting to determine the choice. We argue, first, that uncertainty about individuals' private preferences is necessary for full information sharing and, second, demonstrate in a very general setting that the condition under which unanimity can support full information revelation in debate amounts to it being common knowledge that all committee members invariably share identical preferences over the alternatives. It follows that if ever there exists an equilibrium with fully revealing debate under unanimity rule, there exists an equilibrium with fully revealing debate under any voting rule. Moreover, the converse is not true of majority rule if there is uncertainty about individuals' preferences.

[1]  Oliver P. Shiras The Jury System , 1891 .

[2]  Credible debate equilibria , 1990 .

[3]  D. Austen-Smith Information transmission in debate , 1990 .

[4]  Stephen L. Elkin Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform , 1991 .

[5]  D. Austen-Smith Interested Experts and Policy Advice: Multiple Referrals under Open Rule , 1993 .

[6]  Dennis F. Thompson,et al.  Moral Disagreement in a Democracy , 1995, Social Philosophy and Policy.

[7]  Barton L. Lipman,et al.  Current Draft , 1994 .

[8]  J. Banks,et al.  Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem , 1996, American Political Science Review.

[9]  T. Feddersen,et al.  Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts under Strategic Voting , 1996, American Political Science Review.

[10]  J. Bohman,et al.  Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics , 1997 .

[11]  A. McLennan Consequences of the Condorcet Jury Theorem for Beneficial Information Aggregation by Rational Agents , 1998, American Political Science Review.

[12]  Peter J. Coughlan In Defense of Unanimous Jury Verdicts: Mistrials, Communication, and Strategic Voting , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[13]  P. Sørensen,et al.  Information aggregation in debate: who should speak first? ☆ , 2001 .

[14]  Dino Gerardi,et al.  Putting Your Ballot Where Your Mouth Is: An Analysis of Collective Choice with Communication , 2003 .

[15]  Dino Gerardi,et al.  Communication and Voting with Double-Sided Information , 2003 .

[16]  S. Maffettone,et al.  Political liberalism , 2004 .

[17]  Joshua Cohen,et al.  DELIBERATION AND DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY , 2005, Philosophy, Politics, Democracy.

[18]  Adam Meirowitz,et al.  Deliberative Democracy or Market Democracy: Designing Institutions to Aggregate Preferences and Information , 2005 .

[19]  David Austen-Smith,et al.  Deliberation and Voting Rules , 2005 .

[20]  Adam Meirowitz,et al.  In Defense of Exclusionary Deliberation: Communication and Voting with Private Beliefs and Values , 2007 .