The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Securities against Misrule: Juries, Assemblies, Elections
Abstract
Elster proposes a normative theory of collective decision making, inspired by Jeremy Bentham but not including his utilitarian philosophy. The central proposal is that in designing democratic institutions one should reduce as much as possible the impact of self-interest, passion, prejudice and bias on the decision makers, and then let the chips fall where they may. There is no independently defined good outcome that institutions can track, nor is there any way of reliably selecting good decision makers. In addition to a long initial chapter that surveys theories of collective decision making, notably social choice theory, and a chapter expounding and discussing Bentham's views, historical chapters on the jury, constituent assemblies and electoral systems develop and illustrate the main ideas. This work draws on a welter of case studies and historical episodes, from Thucydides and Plutarch to the present. It is also grounded in psychology, behavioral economics and law.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“If Art 14(5) AIA were to aim at increasing the competence of oversight through collectivising decisions, it should add a third member, since a two-member group will almost always be too small to aggregate its members’ judgments for epistemic gains (Elster 2013: 41–42).”
From Institutionalised distrust and human oversight of artificial intelligence: towards a democratic design of AI governance under the European Union AI Act (2024) · cites this paper as Elster 2013: 41–42
In the citing paper
“There is a longstanding tradition in democratic theory of optimising institutional design to prevent public decision-makers’ competence and motives from being led astray (cf. Bentham et al. 1990; Elster 2013)).”
From Institutionalised distrust and human oversight of artificial intelligence: towards a democratic design of AI governance under the European Union AI Act (2024) · cites this paper as Elster 2013
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Laux, J. (2024) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-023-01777-z · Cited by 127
Metadata
- Authors
- Elster, J.
- Affiliations
- Collège de France (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Elster, Jon
- ORCID
- Elster, Jon
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2013-03-05
- OpenAlex
- W4242279893
- Cited by
- 153
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 10.78
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
- Keywords
- group decision making, democratic institutions, Jeremy Bentham, self-interest, decision bias, social choice, jury, Constituent Assembly, electoral systems, normative theory, behavioral economics, history of democracy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review