Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 178, Issue 1–2, pp 267–287 | Cite as

Collective decision-making of voters with heterogeneous levels of rationality

  • Youzong XuEmail author
Article
  • 49 Downloads

Abstract

This paper studies the collective decision-making processes of voters who have heterogeneous levels of rationality. Specifically, we consider a voting body consisting of both rational and sincere voters. Rational voters vote strategically, correctly using both their private information and the information implicit in other voters’ actions to make decisions; sincere voters vote according to their private information alone. We first characterize the conditions under which the presence of sincere voters increases, reduces, or does not alter the probabilities of making correct collective decisions. We also discuss how the probabilities change when the incidence of sincere voters in the population varies. We then characterize the necessary and sufficient condition under which informational efficiency can be achieved when sincere voters coexist with rational voters. We find that when sincere voters are present, supermajority rules with high consensus levels are not as desirable as they are in rational voting models, as informational efficiency fails under such voting rules.

Keywords

Heterogeneous levels of rationality Collective decision-making Information aggregation Informational efficiency 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to John Nachbar, Elizabeth Penn, and Marcus Berliant for their invaluable guidance and encouragement. I also thank Scott Baker, Randall Calvert, Anqi Li, John Patty, Werner Ploberger, Brian Rogers, Maher Said, Jonathan Weinstein, Yunfei Cao, Wei-Cheng Chen, Bo Li, and Junmin Liao for their helpful comments. I appreciate the financial support from the Department of Economics, Washington University in St. Louis, and the Center for Research in Economics and Strategy at the Olin Business School, Washington University in St. Louis.

References

  1. Ali, S. N., Goeree, J. K., Kartik, N., & Palfrey, T. R. (2008). Information aggregation in standing and ad hoc committees. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 98(2), 181–186.Google Scholar
  2. Alonso, R., & Câmara, O. (2016). Persuading voters. American Economic Review, 106(11), 3590–3605.Google Scholar
  3. Arad, A., & Rubinstein, A. (2012). The 11–20 money request game: A level-k reasoning study. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3561–3573.Google Scholar
  4. Austen-Smith, D., & Banks, J. S. (1996). Information aggregation, rationality, and the Condorcet jury theorem. American Political Science Review, 90(1), 34–45.Google Scholar
  5. Bendor, J., Diermeier, D., & Ting, M. (2003). A behavioral model of turnout. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 261–280.Google Scholar
  6. Berg, S. (1993). Condorcet’s jury theorem, dependency among jurors. Social Choice and Welfare, 10(1), 87–96.Google Scholar
  7. Bhattacharye, S. (2013). Preference monotonicity and information aggregation in elections. Econometrica, 81(3), 1229–1247.Google Scholar
  8. Camerer, C. F., Ho, T., & Chong, J. (2004). A cognitive hierarchy model of games. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), 861–898.Google Scholar
  9. Cipriani, M., & Guarino, A. (2005). Herd behavior in a laboratory financial market. American Economic Review, 95(5), 1427–1443.Google Scholar
  10. Condorcet, M. D. ([1785] 1976). Essay on the application of mathematics to the theory of decision-making. In K. M, Baker (Ed.) Condorcet: Selected writings (pp. 33–70). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  11. Crawford, V. P., & Iriberri, N. (2007). Level-k auctions: Can a nonequilibrium model of strategic thinking explain the winner’s curse and overbidding in private-value auctions? Econometrica, 75(6), 1721–1770.Google Scholar
  12. Duggan, J., & Martinelli, C. (2001). A Bayesian model of voting in juries. Games and Economic Behavior, 37, 259–294.Google Scholar
  13. Esponda, I., & Vespa, E. (2014). Hypothetical thinking and information extraction in the laboratory. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 6(4), 180–202.Google Scholar
  14. Eyster, E., & Rabin, M. (2005). Cursed equilibrium. Econometrica, 73(5), 1623–1672.Google Scholar
  15. Feddersen, T., & Pesendorfer, W. (1996). The swing voter’s curse. American Economic Review, 86(3), 408–424.Google Scholar
  16. Feddersen, T., & Pesendorfer, W. (1997). Voting behavior and information aggregation in elections with private information. Econometrica, 65(5), 1029–1058.Google Scholar
  17. Feddersen, T., & Pesendorfer, W. (1998). Convicting the innocent: The inferiority of unanimous jury verdicts under strategic voting. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 23–35.Google Scholar
  18. Gabaix, X., & Laibson, D. (2006). Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia, and information suppression in competitive markets. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 505–540.Google Scholar
  19. Glaeser, E. L., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Extremism and social learning. Journal of Legal Analysis, 1(1), 263–324.Google Scholar
  20. Guarnaschelli, S., McKelvey, R. D., & Palfrey, T. R. (2000). An experimental study of jury decision rules. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 407–423.Google Scholar
  21. Heidhues, P., & Kőszegi, B. (2017). Naïveté-based discrimination. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(2), 1019–1054.Google Scholar
  22. Jehiel, P., & Koessler, F. (2008). Revisiting games of incomplete information with analogy-based expectations. Games and Economic Behavior, 62(2), 533–557.Google Scholar
  23. Johnen, J. (2018). Dynamic competition in deceptive markets. Working paper.Google Scholar
  24. Kamenica, E., & Gentzkow, M. (2011). Bayesian persuasion. American Economic Review, 101(6), 2590–2615.Google Scholar
  25. Ladha, K. K. (1992). The Condorcet jury theorem, free speech, and correlated votes. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 617–34.Google Scholar
  26. Ladha, K. K., Miller, G., & Oppenheimer, J. (1996). Information aggregation by majority rule: Theory and experiments. Working paper.Google Scholar
  27. Levy, G., & Razin, R. (2015a). Correlation neglect, voting behavior, and information aggregation. American Economic Review, 105(4), 1634–1645.Google Scholar
  28. Levy, G., & Razin, R. (2015b). Does polarization of opinions lead to polarization of platforms? The case of correlation neglect. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10(3), 321–355.Google Scholar
  29. Li, B., & Xu, Y. (2014). Participation in referendum with behaviorally heterogeneous voters. Working paper.Google Scholar
  30. Maug, E., & Rydqvist, K. (2009). Do shareholders vote strategically? Voting behavior, proposal screening, and majority rules. Review of Finance, 13, 47–79.Google Scholar
  31. Meirowitz, A. (2002). Informative voting and Condorcet jury theorems with a continuum of types. Social Choice and Welfare, 19, 219–236.Google Scholar
  32. Miettinen, T. (2009). The partially cursed and the analogy-based expectation equilibrium. Economics Letters, 105, 162–164.Google Scholar
  33. Nagel, R. (1995). Unraveling in guessing games: An experimental study. American Economic Review, 85(5), 1313–1326.Google Scholar
  34. Ortoleva, P., & Snowberg, E. (2015). Overconfidence in political behavior. American Economic Review, 105(2), 504–535.Google Scholar
  35. Rogers, B. W., Palfrey, T. R., & Camerer, C. F. (2009). Heterogeneous quantal response equilibrium and cognitive hierarchies. Journal of Economic Theory, 144, 1440–1467.Google Scholar
  36. Stahl, D., & Wilson, P. (1994). Experimental evidence on players’ models of other players. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 25(3), 309–327.Google Scholar
  37. Stahl, D., & Wilson, P. (1995). On players’ models of other players: Theory and experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 218–254.Google Scholar
  38. Xu, Y., & Li, B. (2017). Resisting evidence manipulation. Working paper.Google Scholar
  39. Young, H. P. (1988). Condorcet’s theory of voting. American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1231–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Business School SuzhouXi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool UniversityJiangsuChina

Personalised recommendations