团结一心促变革：组建商议联盟改变现状。

IF 0.5 4区经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS

Social Choice and Welfare Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1007/s00355-024-01561-y

Edith Elkind, Davide Grossi, Ehud Shapiro, Nimrod Talmon

{"title":"团结一心促变革：组建商议联盟改变现状。","authors":"Edith Elkind, Davide Grossi, Ehud Shapiro, Nimrod Talmon","doi":"10.1007/s00355-024-01561-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We study a setting in which a community wishes to identify a strongly supported proposal from a space of alternatives, in order to change the status quo. We describe a deliberation process in which agents dynamically form coalitions around proposals that they prefer over the status quo. We formulate conditions on the space of proposals and on the ways in which coalitions are formed that guarantee deliberation to succeed, that is, to terminate by identifying a proposal with the largest possible support. Our results provide theoretical foundations for the analysis of deliberative processes such as the ones that take place in online systems for democratic deliberation support.","PeriodicalId":47663,"journal":{"name":"Social Choice and Welfare","volume":"63 3-4","pages":"717-746"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11573847/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"United for change: deliberative coalition formation to change the status quo.\",\"authors\":\"Edith Elkind, Davide Grossi, Ehud Shapiro, Nimrod Talmon\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00355-024-01561-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We study a setting in which a community wishes to identify a strongly supported proposal from a space of alternatives, in order to change the status quo. We describe a deliberation process in which agents dynamically form coalitions around proposals that they prefer over the status quo. We formulate conditions on the space of proposals and on the ways in which coalitions are formed that guarantee deliberation to succeed, that is, to terminate by identifying a proposal with the largest possible support. Our results provide theoretical foundations for the analysis of deliberative processes such as the ones that take place in online systems for democratic deliberation support.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47663,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Choice and Welfare\",\"volume\":\"63 3-4\",\"pages\":\"717-746\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11573847/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Choice and Welfare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-024-01561-y\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Choice and Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-024-01561-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

我们研究了这样一种情况：一个社区希望从众多备选方案中找出一个得到强烈支持的方案，以改变现状。我们描述了一个商议过程，在这个过程中，代理人围绕着他们更倾向于现状的建议动态地组成联盟。我们提出了提案空间和联盟形成方式的条件，这些条件保证了商议的成功，即商议在确定一个支持率最大的提案后结束。我们的研究结果为分析审议过程（如在线民主审议支持系统中的审议过程）提供了理论基础。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

United for change: deliberative coalition formation to change the status quo.

We study a setting in which a community wishes to identify a strongly supported proposal from a space of alternatives, in order to change the status quo. We describe a deliberation process in which agents dynamically form coalitions around proposals that they prefer over the status quo. We formulate conditions on the space of proposals and on the ways in which coalitions are formed that guarantee deliberation to succeed, that is, to terminate by identifying a proposal with the largest possible support. Our results provide theoretical foundations for the analysis of deliberative processes such as the ones that take place in online systems for democratic deliberation support.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Social Choice and Welfare Multiple-

CiteScore

1.60

自引率

11.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Social Choice and Welfare explores all aspects, both normative and positive, of welfare economics, collective choice, and strategic interaction. Topics include but are not limited to: preference aggregation, welfare criteria, fairness, justice and equity, rights, inequality and poverty measurement, voting and elections, political games, coalition formation, public goods, mechanism design, networks, matching, optimal taxation, cost-benefit analysis, computational social choice, judgement aggregation, market design, behavioral welfare economics, subjective well-being studies and experimental investigations related to social choice and voting. As such, the journal is inter-disciplinary and cuts across the boundaries of economics, political science, philosophy, and mathematics. Articles on choice and order theory that include results that can be applied to the above topics are also included in the journal. While it emphasizes theory, the journal also publishes empirical work in the subject area reflecting cross-fertilizing between theoretical and empirical research. Readers will find original research articles, surveys, and book reviews.Officially cited as: Soc Choice Welf