Fabrizio Cariani
speaker
176 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Jul 2010
last heard Jul 2010
Fabrizio Cariani’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
So if we wanted a more democratic way of aggregating opinion, a majority is a good principle to have.
On the other hand, majority has this problem in these somewhat complicated cases in which there are multiple propositions involved.
So what we have to do is find some way of creating collective opinions from the individual opinions that has both the advantages of majority rules and does not have the problems the majority rules have in these cases in which there are connected propositions involved.
So there are a couple of different examples I wanted to mention.
One of them is a so called supermajority principle.
A supermajority principle is just like a majority principle, but the threshold for acceptance is greater than fifty percent.
If you construct the threshold carefully enough and I'm not gonna go into details of this, but if you construct the threshold carefully enough
you can guarantee that the outcome of a supermajority rule will be consistent.
So in the particular case of P, Q and their conjunction, the threshold has to be at least two thirds of the votes.
Any constituency for each propositions of at least two thirds of the ro votes will be guaranteed not to create inconsistencies in that particular case.
There is a little bit of math involved in this, uh we should not necessarily expect that everybody w will figure it out on themselves.
But just like I think the slogan is that raising the threshold in some systematic ways can help you avoid the inconsistency problem.
Yes.
The threshold will fluctuate depending on the circumstances.
Another way of doing it is to designate some propositions as the most important ones, and then aggregate by majority only on those propositions and figure out by inference what you're gonna do on the other propositions.
So for example, in the case of the Berlin Bonn example, you could say that, well, what matters is the proposition that the parliament should move to Berlin and the proposition that the
government should move to Berlin and whether or not they should be in the same city we will just decide once we have the outcome of the first vote.
Or similarly you could say what matters is whether the parliament should move to Berlin and whether the parliament and government should be in the same city.
And whether the government should move we will just decide by by inference.
Yes.
Showing 101–120 of 176 · page 6 of 9
← Previous
Next →