Abstract
In the problem of judgment aggregation, a panel of judges has to evaluate each proposition in a given agenda as true or false, based on their individual evaluations and subject to the constraint of logical consistency. We elaborate on the relation between this and the problem of aggregating abstract binary evaluations. For the special case of truth-functional agendas we have the following main contributions: (1) a syntactical characterization of agendas for which the analogs of Arrow’s aggregation conditions force dictatorship; (2) a complete classification of all aggregators that satisfy those conditions; (3) an analysis of the effect of weakening the Pareto condition to surjectivity.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
