Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog

Condorcet Jury Theorem and Voter Capacity
Jesse Richman, 12/7/2021

Review of “The People Cannot Choose a Constitution: Constituent Power’s Inability to Justify Ratification Referrendums” by Jeffrey A. Lenowitz.  Published in the Journal of Politics, Volume 83 Number 2.

In “The People Cannot Choose a Constitution: Constituent Power’s Inability to Justify Ratification Referrendums” Jeffrey A. Lenowitz argues that voter ignorance undermines the normative justification for including a ratification referendum at the conclusion of the process of drafting a new Constitution.  This argument, however, turns on a failure to distinguish between rampant ignorance on the part of individual voters, and the potential for highly accurate informed choices on the part of the voters collectively.  In brief, despite citing Condorcet, Lenowitz doesn’t fully consider the implications of the Condorcet Jury Theorem for the possibility of wise collective choice by voters in the context of the dichotomous choice to ratify or not ratify a Constitution.

Lenowitz is centrally concerned with the constituent power justification for constitutional referenda.  He defines constituent power as “the unique power of the people (or the people themselves when exercising this power) to make and unmake their constitution, the fundamental law that undergirds and creates their state” (p. 618).

Lenowitz asks “What kind of choice must the relevant portion of the population be capable of when they vote on the constitution?”  To which he answers that “voters must at a minimum be able to evaluate the proposed constitution and act upon their evaluation…. Voters must be aware of and understand what they are creating and authorizing… voters need to be able to accurately reference and apply their own values, beliefs, and interests when making their choice. Specifically, in order to satisfy the logic of CPJ, voters must be capable of making what I call a meaningful choice.”

The next paragraph provides a definition of a “meaningful choice” but engages in a critical element of redefinition.  Note that to this point all of the language has been plural.  The referendum choice is after all a collective choice.  Voters as a whole must have been able to do these things.  But in the next paragraph the language is about an individual voter.  “A voter makes a meaningful choice while voting on a ratification referendum: if she understands…” And after that turn the rest of the article points out a variety of evidence concerning the general flakiness of many individual voters, and their extension of that flakiness to their voting on referendums including Constitutional referendums.

This turn to the individual voter is, however, highly problematic in this context.  It ignores the possibility that voters acting collectively could be making a meaningful choice even in the context of widespread and profound ignorance.  It ignores the implications of the Condorcet jury theorem for the potential accuracy of voters’ choices. Jury theorems demonstrate that under a range of conditions, collective choices by highly uninformed voters can lead to an accurate collective choice.  If each voter has only a tiny probability above 50 percent of correctly perceiving the details of the constitution, none the less, the collective choice can exhibit a much greater degree of wisdom.  

Consider the following simple illustration.  Suppose that we must decide between having 55 highly informed citizens (say the constitutional convention itself) simply decide on the constitution, versus having 1 million and one citizens make a decision in a ratifying referrendum. 

Suppose that the 55 citizens have nearly all of the information needed to make a meaningful choice, and that each reaches a correct independent judgment 95 percent of the time.  Suppose that each of the citizens has less information, such that each has an independent probability of making a meaningful choice only 50.5 percent of the time.  That is, they have a 49.5 percent chance of making the wrong choice and a 50.5 percent change of making the right choice.  They are only slightly more likely to get the choice right than they would be if they merely flipped a coin. 

I simulate this using the Binomial distribution.  The probability of interest is the probability of less than a majority making the correct decision. 

  Formula using binomial distribution function
  Probability of failure
55 highly informed voters 0.000000000000000000000374969541829453000
One million and one nearly uninformed voters 0.000000000000000000000007600063865841570
Ratio 49.337683

The probabilities of incorrect decisions in both instances are tiny, but the probability of the million and one uninformed voters making the incorrect decision is substantially tinier – roughly one fiftieth as large.

The nature of a constitutional referendum is well suited to such an analysis: the jury theorems adapt very cleanly to this context.  The alternatives are typically dichotomous “the task of the ratifier is to determine whether she prefers a proposed constitution to the status quo.” P. 621.  With merely two choices, under a range of conditions that are likely but not certain to hold, collective choice will yield the correct outcome – the one that voters would have achieved if fully informed.  For a discussion of such issues see  As such, a ratifying referendum can be justified as an expression of the consent and a meaningful choice in the exercise of the constituent power of the people.   A large group can make a very meaningful and even rational collective choice that emerges as a result of the aggregation of the admittedly very partial and incomplete information and reasoning capacity available to each one of them.  

Your Name:

Post a Comment:

  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Jan 2022
    Dec 2021

    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term
    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Last 100 Years

    Real Estate Taxation

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]