We analyse the problem of aggregating judgments over multiple issues from the perspective ofefficient aggregation of voters’ private information. While new in judgment aggregation theory,this perspective is familiar in a different body of literature about voting between twoalternatives when voters. disagreements stem (fully or partly) from conflicts of informationrather than interests. Combining the two literatures, we consider a simple judgment aggregationproblem and model the private information underlying voters’ judgments. We analyse the resultingstrategic incentives and determine which voting rules lead to collective judgments thatefficiently use all private information, assuming that voters share a preference for truecollective judgments. We find that in many, but not all cases a quota rule should be used, whichdecides on each issue according to whether the proportion of ‘yes’ votes exceeds a particular quota.
