Aggregation
Named by 3 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Also named here as majority — the same set of essays touches all of them, so they are one junction rather than several.
The court that contradicts itself
Three judges each answer three questions, and each answers them consistently. Take the majority on each question separately and the answers no longer hang together — the body as a whole asserts a combination no member of it holds, and no rearrangement of the procedure removes the problem.
No rule escapes the doctrinal paradox
A court whose members each hold a consistent position can reach an inconsistent verdict by majority. The anchor's first rung exhibits one such case, which invites the hope that a better rule would avoid it — and every rule that responds to the votes at all fails somewhere.
Deciding the premises or the conclusion
A body that cannot be both decisive and coherent has to choose which. The two live options are to vote on the reasons and let the verdict follow, or to vote on the verdict and let the reasons look after themselves — and they reach opposite answers on exactly the profiles the impossibility identifies.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
ConsistencyMajorityVoting ruleImpossibilityJudgement aggregationLogicAxiomDecided by exhaustionDeliberationExhaustive searchLogical connectiveManipulation