The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rousseau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective
Abstract
We identify three basic elements of Rousseau's theory of the general will: (1) there is a common good; (2) citizens are not always accurate in their judgments about what is in the common good; and (3) when citizens strive to identify the common good and vote in accordance with their perceptions of it, the vote of the Assembly of the People can be taken to be the most reliable means for ascertaining the common good. We then show that Condorcet's (1785) model of collective judgment shares these assumptions with Rousseau and that understanding the implications of Condorcet's (1785) “jury theorem” enables us to clarify many of the most obscure aspects of Rousseau's treatment of the general will, including his discussion of the debilitating effects of factions and his confidence in the ability of the Assembly of the People to discern the general will by means of voting.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Social Choice and Individual Values.
Shackle, G. L. S., & Arrow, K. J. (1951) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2549613 · Cited by 7,792
The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy
Buchanan, J., & Tullock, G. (1960) · University of Michigan Press eBooks · doi:10.3998/mpub.7687 · Cited by 3,595
The Theory of Committees and Elections.
Stuart, A., & Black, D. (1959) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2550498 · Cited by 2,822
Riker, W. H., Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962) · Midwest Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2108773 · Cited by 2,059
Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix
Condorcet, N. D. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139923972 · Cited by 1,417
Buchanan, J. M. (1962) · Cited by 938
Farquharson, R. (1969) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 608
Thirteen theorems in search of the truth
Grofman, B., Owen, G., & Feld, S. L. (1983) · Theory and Decision · doi:10.1007/bf00125672 · Cited by 477
Self-citationPierce, D. J., de Tocqueville, A., Bradley, P., & Laski, H. J. (1945) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2086177 · Cited by 461
Rational Consensus in Science and Society
Lehrer, K., & Wagner, C. (1981) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-8520-9 · Cited by 450
Cited by
Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation
Berns, G. S., Chappelow, J., Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., Martin-Skurski, M. E., & Richards, J. (2005) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012 · Cited by 300
Collective preferences in democratic politics: opinion surveys and the will of the people
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-1221 · Cited by 274
Populism and Democratic Theory
Mansbridge, J., & Macedo, S. (2019) · Annual Review of Law and Social Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042843 · Cited by 185
The Power of the Multitude: Answering Epistemic Challenges to Democracy
BAGG, S. (2018) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055418000527 · Cited by 128
Rousseau's Anti–Agenda-Setting Agenda and Contemporary Democratic Theory
SCOTT, J. T. (2005) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055405051543 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Grofman, B., & Feld, S. L.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1988-06
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 567-576
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W1979756116
- Cited by
- 462
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 23.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rousseau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1957401
- The paper
- Grofman, B., & Feld, S. L. (1988). Rousseau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/1957401
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
