Crowdvoting Judgment: An Analysis of Modern Peer Review

In this paper, we propose and analyze models of self policing in online communities, in which assessment activities, typically handled by firm employees, are shifted to the “crowd.” Our underlying objective is to maximize firm value by maintaining the quality of the online community to prevent attrition, which, given a parsimonious model of voter participation, we show can be achieved by efficiently utilizing the crowd of volunteer voters. To do so, we focus on minimizing the number of voters needed for each assessment, subject to service-level constraints, which depends on a voting aggregation rule. We focus our attention on classes of voting aggregators that are simple, interpretable, and implementable, which increases the chance of adoption in practice. We consider static and dynamic variants of simple majority-rule voting, with which each vote is treated equally. We also study static and dynamic variants of a more sophisticated voting rule that allows more accurate voters to have a larger influence in determining the aggregate decision. We consider both independent and correlated voters and show that correlation is detrimental to performance. Finally, we take a system view and characterize the limit of a costless crowdvoting system that relies solely on volunteer voters. If this limit does not satisfy target service levels, then costly firm employees are needed to supplement the crowd.

Democratic Federalism

This chapter details the likely economic, democratic, and rights performance of a decentralized national legislature with representatives elected from geographically specified local districts. The national legislature is assigned responsibility for national public goods and services and national regulations. Decisions in the legislature are made by simple majority rule. Independent local governments continue to be responsible for important local services, perhaps provided concurrently with the national government. On the dimensions of democratic participation and the protection of rights and liberties, Democratic Federalism is likely to do well, provided all citizens are represented in the legislature. It is on the dimension of economic efficiency that legislature-only Democratic Federalism is most likely to fall short.

Should Jurors Deliberate?

Does the accuracy of verdicts improve or worsen if individual jurors on a panel are barred from deliberating prior to casting their votes? I study this question in a model where jurors can choose to exert costly effort to improve the accuracy of their individual decisions. I find that, provided the cost of effort is not too large, it is better to allow jurors to deliberate if jury size exceeds a threshold. For panels smaller than this threshold, it is more effective to instruct jurors to vote on the basis of their private information, without deliberations, and to use a simple majority rule to determine the collective decision (regardless of the voting rule used with deliberations). The smaller the cost of paying attention, the larger the threshold above which the switch to allowing deliberations becomes optimal. However, if the unanimity rule had to be maintained under the no-deliberations system, it would be better to allow deliberation. The results apply to binary decision making in any committee where the committee members incur some effort in reviewing the evidence. Examples are arbitration panels and tenure and promotion committees and some board of director meetings on issues such as whether to dismiss a CEO. As an extension I consider the case where jurors differ in their costs of effort.

Institution-Induced Stability

Simple majority rule is badly behaved. This is one of the earliest lessons learned by political scientists in the positive political theory tradition. Discovered and rediscovered by theorists over the centuries (including, famously, the Majorcan Franciscan monk Raymon Llull in the thirteenth century, the Marquis de Condorcet in the eighteenth, the Reverend Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) in the eighteenth, and Duncan Black in the twentieth), the method of majority rule cannot be counted on to produce a rational collective choice. In many circumstances (made precise in the technical literature), it is very likely (a claim also made precise) that whatever choice is produced will suffer the property of not being “best” in the preferences of all majorities: for any candidate alternative, there will always exist another alternative that some majority prefers to it. This chapter suggests that while a collection of preferences often cannot provide a collectively “best” choice, institutional arrangements, which restrict comparisons of alternatives, may allow majority rule to function more smoothly. That is, where equilibrium induced by preferences alone may fail to exist, institutional structure may induce stability.

Social information and spontaneous emergence of leaders in human groups

Understanding the dynamics of social networks is the objective of interdisciplinary research ranging from animal collective behaviour to epidemiology, political science and marketing. Social influence is key to comprehending emergent group behaviour, but we know little about how inter-individual relationships emerge in the first place. We conducted an experiment where participants repeatedly performed a cognitive test in a small group. In each round, they were allowed to change their answers upon seeing the current answers of other members and their past performance in selecting correct answers. Rather than following a simple majority rule, participants granularly processed the performance of others in deciding how to change their answers. Toward a network model of the experiment, we associated a directed link of a time-varying network with every change in a participant's answer that mirrored the answer of another group member. The rate of growth of the network was not constant in time, whereby links were found to emerge faster as time progressed. Further, repeated interactions reinforced relationships between individuals' performance and their network centrality. Our results provide empirical evidence that inter-individual relationships spontaneously emerge in an adaptive way, where good performers rise as group leaders over time.

On linear wine score aggregators and the preservation of group preferences

Purpose This paper aims to identify the potential conflicts that arise between the actual and the revealed preference of a panel of wine judges when the panel’s evaluation is derived by a linear aggregation of individual scores. Design/methodology/approach A standard axiomatic social choice theoretical model is used to derive and examine the findings. Findings The findings show that even with the application of a simple majority rule over the pairwise ranking of wines, preferences may be misrepresented by the ordinal ranking of the wine score aggregation. Originality/value A number of wine competitions and reviews, to date, use some form of linear aggregation to represent group preferences. Furthermore, tests surrounding wine judge performance are largely dependent on some underlying true measures usually derived from a linear aggregation. The results imply that care should be taken in these regards.

Persuading Voters

In a symmetric information voting model, an individual (politician) can influence voters' choices by strategically designing a policy experiment (public signal). We characterize the politician's optimal experiment. With a nonunanimous voting rule, she exploits voters' heterogeneity by designing an experiment with realizations targeting different winning coalitions. Consequently, under a simple-majority rule, a majority of voters might be strictly worse off due to the politician's influence. We characterize voters' preferences over electoral rules and provide conditions for a majority of voters to prefer a supermajority (or unanimity) voting rule, in order to induce the politician to supply a more informative experiment. (JEL D72, D83)