Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The Two-dimensional Model of Jury Decision Making

By Manfred J. Holler


This paper discusses a two-dimensional jury model. It combines the idea of winning a maximum of votes in a voting game with utility maximization that derives from the winning proposition. The model assumes a first mover, the plaintiff, and a second-mover, the counsel of the defendant. Typically, these agents represent parties that have conflicting interests. Here they face a jury that consists of three groups of voters such that no single group has a majority of votes. Each group is characterized by homogeneous preferences on three alternatives that describe the possible outcomes. The outcome is selected by a simple majority of the jury members. The agents are interested in both gaining the support of a majority of jury members and seeing their preferred alternative selected as outcome. It will be demonstrated that equilibrium decision making can be derived for this model.Condorcet's Jury Theorem, Voting Paradox, majority cycle, aggregation of preferences, agenda setting, collective decision making.

OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (1995). Basic Geometry of Voting,
  2. (2007). Democratic decision procedures, stability of outcome, and agent power, with special reference to the European Union,”
  3. (1989). Majority systems and the Condorcet jury theorem,”
  4. (2006). Models of Political Economy,
  5. (1948). On the rationale of group decision making,"
  6. (2011). Optimal jury design for homogeneous juries with correlated votes”, Theory and Decision (forthcoming).
  7. (1973). Parties as utility maximizers,”
  8. (2011). Ranking Wheels' and Decision Cycles”,
  9. (1994). Regulatory policymaking in a parliamentary setting,“ Jahrbuch für Neue Politische Ökonomie,
  10. (1994). Regulatory policymaking in a parliamentary setting: comment,”
  11. (1988). Rousseau‟s General Will: A Condorcetion perspective,”
  12. (1984). Social Choice Theory and Democracy: A comparison of Two Recent Views”,
  13. (1982). The relevance of the voting paradox: a restatement,”
  14. (1980). What is paradoxical about the voting paradox,”

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.