Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:20:21.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epistemic aspects of representative government

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2011

Robert E. Goodin  and
Kai Spiekermann
Robert E. Goodin*
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy, Australian National University, Canberra ACT, Australia Department of Government, University of Essex, Colchester, UK
Kai Spiekermann
Affiliation:
Department of Government, London School of Economics, London, UK
*
* E-mail: Bob.Goodin@anu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Federalist, justifying the Electoral College to elect the president, claimed that a small group of more informed individuals would make a better decision than the general mass. But the Condorcet Jury Theorem tells us that the more independent, better-than-random voters there are, the more likely it will be that the majority among them will be correct. The question thus arises as to how much better, on average, members of the smaller group would have to be to compensate for the epistemic costs of making decisions on the basis of that many fewer votes. This question is explored in the contexts of referendum democracy, delegate-style representative democracy, and trustee-style representative democracy.

Keywords

Condorcet Jury Theoremepistemic democracyrepresentative governmentFederalist papersreferendum
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , November 2012 , pp. 303 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austen-Smith, D.Banks, J.S. (1996), ‘Information aggregation, rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem’, American Political Science Review 90(1): 34–45.Google Scholar
Ben-Yashar, R.Paroush, J. (2000), ‘A non-asymptotic Condorcet Jury Theorem’, Social Choice and Welfare 17: 189–199.Google Scholar
Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D.Welch, I. (1992), ‘A theory of fads, fashion, custom and cultural change as informational cascades’, Journal of Political Economy 100: 992–1026.Google Scholar
Black, D. (1958), The Theory of Committees and Elections, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, J.Rehg, W. (eds) (1997), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boland, P., Proschan, F.Tong, Y.L. (1989), ‘Modelling dependence in simple and indirect majority systems’, Journal of Applied Probability 26(1): 81–88.Google Scholar
Bovens, L.Rabinowicz, W. (2006), ‘Democratic answers to complex questions – an epistemic perspective’, Synthese 150: 131–153.Google Scholar
Brennan, G.Hamlin, A. (1992), ‘Bicameralism and majoritarian equilibrium’, Public Choice 74: 169–179.Google Scholar
Condorcet, M. de (1785), ‘Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilite des decisions rendues à la pluralite des voix, Paris: l'Imprimerie Royale’, Reprinted in part in K.M. Baker (ed.), Condorcet: Selected Writings, Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1976, pp. 33–70.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, M.Keeter, S. (1996), What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. (2008), ‘The premises of Condorcet's Jury Theorem are not simultaneously justified’, Episteme 58: 56–73.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F.List, C. (2004), ‘A model of jury decisions where all jurors have the same evidence’, Synthese 142: 175–202.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Estlund, D.M. (1989), ‘Democratic theory and the public interest: Condorcet and Rousseau revisited’, American Political Science Review 38: 1317–1322.Google Scholar
Feddersen, T.Pesendorfer, W. (1998), ‘Convicting the innocent: the inferiority of unanimous jury verdicts under strategic voting’, American Political Science Review 92(1): 23–35.Google Scholar
Fuerstein, M. (2008), ‘Epistemic democracy and the social character of knowledge’, Episteme 5: 74–93.Google Scholar
Goodin, R.E. (2008), Innovating Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grofman, B., Owen, G.Feld, S. (1983), ‘Thirteen theorems in search of the truth’, Theory & Decision 15: 261–278.Google Scholar
Hamilton, A. (1788), ‘Federalist No. 68’, in J. Cooke (ed.), The Federalist, Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961, pp. 457–462.Google Scholar
Inter-Parliamentary Union. (2010), ‘PARLINE database on national parliaments’. Retrieved 7 April 2010 from http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/parlinesearch.aspGoogle Scholar
Kaniovski, S. (2010), ‘Aggregation of correlated votes and Condorcet's Jury Theorem’, Theory and Decision 69(3): 453–468.Google Scholar
Kaniovski, S.Zaigraev, A. (2011), ‘Optimal jury design for homogeneous juries with correlated votes’, Theory and Decision 71(4): 439–459.Google Scholar
Ladha, K. (1992), ‘The Condorcet Jury Theorem, free speech and correlated votes’, American Journal of Political Science 36: 617–634.Google Scholar
Ladha, K. (1993), ‘Condorcet's Jury Theorem in light of de Finetti's theorem’, Social Choice and Welfare 10(1): 69–85.Google Scholar
Ladha, K. (1995), ‘Information pooling through majority-rule voting: Condorcet's Jury Theorem with correlated votes’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 26(3): 353–372.Google Scholar
List, C. (2003), ‘On the significance of the absolute margin’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55: 521–544.Google Scholar
List, C. (2005), ‘The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions’, Social Choice and Welfare 24: 3–31.Google Scholar
List, C.Goodin, R.E. (2001), ‘Epistemic democracy: generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem’, Journal of Political Philosophy 9: 277–306.Google Scholar
List, C.Pettit, P. (2004), ‘An epistemic free-riding problem?’, in P. Catton and G. Macdonald (eds), Karl Popper: Critical Appraisals, Abington: Routledge, pp. 128–158.Google Scholar
Lupia, A.W.McCubbins, M.D. (1998), The Democratic Dilemma, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luskin, R.C., Fishkin, J.S.Jowell, R. (2002), ‘Considered opinions: deliberative polling in Britain’, British Journal of Political Science 32: 455–488.Google Scholar
Madison, J. (1787a), ‘Federalist no. 10’, in J. Cooke (ed.), The Federalist, Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961, pp. 56–65.Google Scholar
Madison, J. (1787b), ‘Federalist no. 58’, in J. Cooke (ed.), The Federalist, Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961, pp. 392–395.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (1992), ‘Deliberative democracy and social choice’, Political Studies 40(5): 54–67.Google Scholar
Montesquieu, C. (1721), Persian Letters (translated by C. Bett), Harmondsworth, Mddx: Penguin, 1973.Google Scholar
Owen, G.Grofman, B. (1984), ‘To vote or not to vote: the paradox of nonvoting’, Public Choice 42: 311–325.Google Scholar
Owen, G., Grofman, B.Feld, S. (1989), ‘Proving a distribution-free generalization of the Condorcet Jury Theorem’, Mathematical Social Sciences 17: 1–16.Google Scholar
Page, B.I.Shapiro, R.Y. (1992), The Rational Public, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pigozzi, G. (2006), ‘Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation’, Synthese 152: 285–298.Google Scholar
Rosenkranz, N. (2007), ‘Condorcet and the constitution’, Stanford Law Review 59: 1281–1308.Google Scholar
Spiekermann, K.Goodin, R.E. (forthcoming), ‘Courts of many minds’, British Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. (2009), A Constitution of Many Minds, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeule, A. (2009), Law and the Limits of Reason, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, J. (1989), ‘Democratic theory and the public interest: Condorcet and Rousseau revisited’, American Political Science Review 38(4): 1322–1328.Google Scholar
Zaigraev, A.Kaniovski, S. (2010), ‘Bounds on the competence of a homogeneous jury’, Theory and Decision 5 (forthcoming: available online DOI: 10.1007/s11238-010-9216-5).Google Scholar