In this Essay, I introduce two voting paradoxes that plague the jury system.
Simply put, the jury voting paradoxes that I have identified are endemic to special verdicts.
In Part II, I detail the jury voting paradoxes and explain why they present problems for the legal system.
In his new book, Mueller reviews many solutions that have been proposed to the voting paradox
. The common idea is that self-interest has to be conceived in a less narrow fashion: the voter must consider other benefits than the expected gains from his preferred candidate's policies.
(18) David Post and Steven Salop have argued that such courts should adopt a system of "issue voting" as opposed to "outcome voting" to overcome the voting paradox. (19) Stearns contributes to this important body of work.
(20) His delineation of the voting paradox in the current book is outstanding and will be a great resource for anyone seeking to understand Condorcet's and Arrow's ideas (pp.
Stearns's arguments about the rightness of rules that resolve the voting paradox are normative, of course.
The problematic examples have the structure of voting paradoxes
. Just as voting paradoxes
show that no voting rule can do everything we want, decision-theoretic paradoxes show that no decision rule can do everything we want.