scholarly journals Condorcet’s jury theorem: General will and epistemic democracy

2018 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 147-170
Author(s):  
Miljan Vasic

My aim in this paper is to explain what Condorcet?s jury theorem is, and to examine its central assumptions, its significance to the epistemic theory of democracy and its connection with Rousseau?s theory of general will. In the first part of the paper I will analyze an epistemic theory of democracy and explain how its connection with Condorcet?s jury theorem is twofold: the theorem is at the same time a contributing historical source, and the model used by the authors to this day. In the second part I will specify the purposes of the theorem itself, and examine its underlying assumptions. Third part will be about an interpretation of Rousseau?s theory, which is given by Grofman and Feld relying on Condorcet?s jury theorem, and about criticisms of such interpretation. In the fourth, and last, part I will focus on one particular assumption of Condorcet?s theorem, which proves to be especially problematic if we would like to apply the theorem under real-life conditions; namely, the assumption that voters choose between two options only.

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Sheng Zhang

My dissertation aims to answer two questions: (1) Is democracy epistemically valuable? (2) Is the epistemic value of democracy, if it has any, necessary for justifying its legitimacy? I argue that democracy in certain form can be epistemically valuable. However, I also argue that the epistemic value of democracy is not necessary for justifying its legitimacy. To defend the epistemic value of democracy, I propose a postdeliberation version of Condorcet's jury theorem. I argue that this version of the jury theorem can avoid the common challenges against the classic version. To reject the necessity of epistemic value for democratic legitimacy, I argue that, given that the epistemic value of democracy is subject to disagreement, it cannot be used to justify legitimacy. In addition, I provide a purely proceduralist argument for democratic legitimacy, which appeals to the egalitarian principle that every citizens ought to be equally respected by the state. This argument, if succeeds, shows that the epistemic value of democracy is not necessary for justifying democratic legitimacy.


2020 ◽  
pp. 019145372097471
Author(s):  
Peter Niesen

Cognitivist theories of democratic decision-making come in two flavours, which I label transparently and intransparently epistemic. Lafont’s deliberative theory of democracy has strengths in accounting for the transparently truth-tracing power of justification but lacks a plausible account of the intransparently truth-tracking power of aggregative approaches highlighted by, among others, Hélène Landemore, such as the Condorcet Jury Theorem or the Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem. I suggest opting for an approach that includes semi-transparently epistemic mechanisms, that is, truth-tracking mechanisms, the workings of which can be explained, passing the public reason test, to all citizens.


1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 1317-1340 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Estlund ◽  
Jeremy Waldron ◽  
Bernard Grofman ◽  
Scott L. Feld

Bernard Grofman and Scott Feld argued in the June 1988 issue of this Review that Jean-Jacques Rousseau's contributions to democratic political theory could be illuminated by invoking the theorizing of one of his eighteenth-century contemporaries, the Marquis de Condorcet, about individual and collective preferences or judgments. Grofman and Feld's claims about collective consciousness and the efficacy of the public interest provoke debate. One focus of discourse lies in the application of Condorcet's jury theorem to Rousseau's theory of the general will. In this controversy David M. Estlund and Jeremy Waldron in turn raise a variety of issues of theory and interpretation; Grofman and Feld then extend their argument, and propose clarifications.


2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 198-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suat Gonul ◽  
Tuncay Namli ◽  
Sasja Huisman ◽  
Gokce Banu Laleci Erturkmen ◽  
Ismail Hakki Toroslu ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectiveWe aim to deliver a framework with 2 main objectives: 1) facilitating the design of theory-driven, adaptive, digital interventions addressing chronic illnesses or health problems and 2) producing personalized intervention delivery strategies to support self-management by optimizing various intervention components tailored to people’s individual needs, momentary contexts, and psychosocial variables.Materials and MethodsWe propose a template-based digital intervention design mechanism enabling the configuration of evidence-based, just-in-time, adaptive intervention components. The design mechanism incorporates a rule definition language enabling experts to specify triggering conditions for interventions based on momentary and historical contextual/personal data. The framework continuously monitors and processes personal data space and evaluates intervention-triggering conditions. We benefit from reinforcement learning methods to develop personalized intervention delivery strategies with respect to timing, frequency, and type (content) of interventions. To validate the personalization algorithm, we lay out a simulation testbed with 2 personas, differing in their various simulated real-life conditions.ResultsWe evaluate the design mechanism by presenting example intervention definitions based on behavior change taxonomies and clinical guidelines. Furthermore, we provide intervention definitions for a real-world care program targeting diabetes patients. Finally, we validate the personalized delivery mechanism through a set of hypotheses, asserting certain ways of adaptation in the delivery strategy, according to the differences in simulation related to personal preferences, traits, and lifestyle patterns.ConclusionWhile the design mechanism is sufficiently expandable to meet the theoretical and clinical intervention design requirements, the personalization algorithm is capable of adapting intervention delivery strategies for simulated real-life conditions.


2018 ◽  
Vol 122 (12) ◽  
pp. 2151-2156 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Nawarskas ◽  
Jason Koury ◽  
David A. Lauber ◽  
Linda A. Felton

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document