Towards a Unified Aggregation Framework for Preferences and Judgements

In their foundational work, List and Pettit formalized the judgment aggregation framework and showed that the preference aggregation framework from social choice theory can be mapped into it, arguing that the reverse was not possible. We show that a natural extension of a graph-theoretic representation of the preference aggregation framework indeed allows us to embed also the judgment aggregation framework. Moreover, we show that many concepts from the two original frameworks match up under the new one, show that it is possible to detect “logical consistency” with graph-theoretical properties, and give a new nuanced comparison between the doctrinal paradox and the Condorcet paradox.