Aggregating judgments by the majority method

Judgement aggregation has been receiving increasing attention over recent years. Some typical impossibility results have been proved, about majority and other similar aggregation methods. Those results depend essentially on certain logical constraints borrowed from standard two- valued deductive logic. Nevertheless, the adequacy of these constraints is doubtful. In this paper, we show that by weakening the consistency conditions in a plausible way, such impossibility theorems can be reversed. We also show that the formalism habitually employed in social choice theory may convey a richer setting for analysing this sort of aggregation