TY - JOUR
T1 - Intuitions about the epistemic virtues of majority voting
AU - Mercier, Hugo
AU - Dockendorff, Martin
AU - Majima, Yoshimasa
AU - Hacquin, Anne Sophie
AU - Schwartzberg, Melissa
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - The Condorcet Jury Theorem, along with empirical results, establishes the accuracy of majority voting in a broad range of conditions. Here we investigate whether naïve participants (in the U.S. and Japan) are aware of this accuracy. In four experiments, participants were provided with information about an assembly voting to decide on one of two options, one being better than the other. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were provided with specific parameters and they vastly underestimated the probability that the majority would select the right option. In Experiment 3, participants were provided with less specific information, and still underestimated the probability that the majority would select the right option. In Experiment 4, participants were asked to compare majority rules and supermajority rules. Most participants failed to grasp the relative weakness of supermajority rules. Our results are compatible with participant relying on a simple model of the voting situation based either on the competence of an individual voter, or on the minimum proportion required for a majority to form, making them largely blind to the “miracle of aggregation.”.
AB - The Condorcet Jury Theorem, along with empirical results, establishes the accuracy of majority voting in a broad range of conditions. Here we investigate whether naïve participants (in the U.S. and Japan) are aware of this accuracy. In four experiments, participants were provided with information about an assembly voting to decide on one of two options, one being better than the other. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were provided with specific parameters and they vastly underestimated the probability that the majority would select the right option. In Experiment 3, participants were provided with less specific information, and still underestimated the probability that the majority would select the right option. In Experiment 4, participants were asked to compare majority rules and supermajority rules. Most participants failed to grasp the relative weakness of supermajority rules. Our results are compatible with participant relying on a simple model of the voting situation based either on the competence of an individual voter, or on the minimum proportion required for a majority to form, making them largely blind to the “miracle of aggregation.”.
KW - Condorcet Jury Theorem
KW - Majority voting
KW - democratic procedures
KW - supermajority voting
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85106812323&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85106812323&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13546783.2020.1857306
DO - 10.1080/13546783.2020.1857306
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85106812323
SN - 1354-6783
VL - 27
SP - 445
EP - 463
JO - Thinking and Reasoning
JF - Thinking and Reasoning
IS - 3
ER -