ABSTRACT
Consider the following example of a complex social decision. Deans of institutions of higher learning in the US yearly make a range of tenure decisions. In many institutions, both the teaching skills and the research skills of the candidates are deemed to be relevant to the decision and the candidates are required to meet some standard on both skills. The dean's decision is informed by a faculty vote in the home department of the candidate. Here is a question about procedure. Either the dean might ask each faculty member to assess the candidate on teaching and research and cast a yes vote for tenure if and only if she deems the candidate to be worthy on both. Tenure will be granted just in case there is sufficient support for the candidate. Let us call this the conclusion-based procedure (cbp). Or the dean might ask each faculty member to cast a vote on whether the candidate is worthy on teaching and to cast a vote on whether the candidate is worthy on research. Tenure will be granted just in case there is sufficient support for the candidate both
on teaching and on research. Let us call this the premise-based procedure (pbp). These procedures are by no means equivalent, as many administrators have noticed in practice. Within legal theory, this has been noticed in connection with jury votes (cf. Kornhauser and Sager, 1986; 1993; Kornhauser, 1992a; 1992b; and Chapman, 1998a; 1998b). There may be a majority of voters supporting each premise, but if the overlap between these majorities is small, then there will be a majority against the conclusion. It is an open question which is the better truth-tracking procedure, i.e. which procedure has a better chance of granting the candidate tenure if and only if he is worthy on both teaching and research. This is a common procedural problem in democratic decision-making. It is confronted by any collective when it has to address a complex issue that can be decomposed into several sub-questions.
