POSITIVELY RESPONSIVE COLLECTIVE CHOICE RULES AND MAJORITY RULE: A GENERALIZATION OF MAY'S THEOREM TO MANY ALTERNATIVES

2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 1489-1504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Horan ◽  
Martin J. Osborne ◽  
M. Remzi Sanver
Keyword(s):  
Majority Rule ◽  
Collective Choice

Collective decisions divert regret and responsibility away from the individual

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marwa El Zein ◽  
Bahador Bahrami
Keyword(s):  
Majority Rule ◽  
Negative Emotions ◽  
Protective Role ◽  
Collective Choice ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
Protective Shield ◽  
The Individual

It has recently been proposed that a key motivation for joining group decisions is to be protected from negative consequences of these decisions. To test this claim we investigated how experienced outcomes that trigger loss and regret impacted people’s tendency to make decisions alone or in a group, and how these decisions differed when voluntarily made alone vs in group. Replicated across two experiments, participants (N=125 and N=451) first selected whether to play alone or in a group with majority rule. Next, they chose between two lotteries with different probabilities and magnitudes of winning and losing. Experienced outcomes affected participants’ propensity to join a group: the higher the negative outcome, the more participants switched from deciding alone to with others. When choosing the lottery collectively (vs alone), choices were less driven by anticipation of loss and regret. Moreover, negative outcomes led to worse subsequent choices but only when outcome was experienced alone. Together, these results confirm the protective role of group decisions against blame and responsibility and reveal an alarming consequence of group decisions: when collective choice leads to unpalatable outcomes, the protective shield of the collective reduces the influence of negative emotions that could have helped individuals re-evaluate their past choice and possibly avoid repeating their mistakes.

Epilogue

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Goodin ◽  
Kai Spiekermann
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
European Union ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Epistemic Democracy ◽  
The Core ◽  
Echo Chambers ◽  
Filter Bubbles

This chapter reflects on the election of Donald Trump and the vote of the British electorate in favour of ‘Brexit’ from the European Union. While we refrain from judging the outcomes of these votes, we do discuss concerns pertaining to the lack of truthfulness in both campaigns. After rehearsing the lies on which the Trump and Brexit campaigns were based, we consider different explanations as to why these campaigns were nevertheless successful, and where this leaves the argument for epistemic democracy. Particularly worrisome are tendencies towards ‘epistemic insouciance’, ‘epistemic malevolence’, and ‘epistemic agnosticism’. We also consider the problematic influence of social media in terms of echo chambers and filter bubbles. The core argument in favour of epistemic democracy is that the pooling of votes by majority rule has epistemically beneficial properties, assuming certain conditions. If these assumptions are not met, or are systematically corrupted, then epistemic democracy is under threat.

The Stakes of Decolonization, 1945–1960

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Talbot C. Imlay
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
The Political ◽  
Nation State ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Political Implications ◽  
Common Position ◽  
Human Individual ◽  
Post War

In examining the efforts of European socialists to forge a common position towards the issue of post-war empires, this chapter highlights some of the political stakes involved in decolonization. As debates between European and Asian socialists suggest, the process of decolonization witnessed a struggle between competing rights: national rights, minority rights, and human (individual) rights. Each set of rights possessed far-reaching political implications, none more so than minority rights, as they were often associated with limits on national sovereignty. These limits could be internal, such as constitutional restraints on the working of majority rule; but they could also take the form of external constraints on sovereignty, including alternatives to the nation state itself. The victory of the nation state, in other words, was inextricably tied to the defeat of minority rights as well as the growing predominance of human rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document