Abstract

Collective decision making requires preference aggregation even if no ideal aggregation method exists. We investigate how individuals think groups should aggregate members' ordinal preferences: that is, how they interpret the will of the people. Our experiment elicits revealed attitudes toward ordinal preference aggregation and classifies subjects according to the rules they implicitly deploy. Majoritarianism is rare while rules that promote compromise are common.

People evaluate relative sacrifice by inferring cardinal utility from ordinal ranks. Cluster analysis reveals that our classification encompasses all important aggregation rules. Aggregation methods exhibit stability across domains and across countries with divergent traditions.

Materials

Machine-Readable Metadata

This page includes Schema.org ScholarlyArticle JSON-LD and alternate links in the HTML head for Markdown, LaTeX source bundles, Word-source text, and plain text when available.