 Let us restrict attention to the aggregation of judgments formulated in the language L of propositional logic (the problem of judgment aggregation can be generalized to modal and conditional logics as well as predicate logic, see Dietrich 2007; for a more in-depth discussion of non-classical logics and judgment aggregation see Grossi 2009, Porello 2017 and Xuefeng 2018). The set of formulas on which the individuals express judgments is called agenda \((A\subseteq L\)). The agenda does not contain double negations \((\neg \neg \varphi\) is equivalent to \(\varphi\)), is closed with respect to negation (i.e., if \(\varphi \in A\), then also \(\neg \varphi \in A\)) and is generally assumed not to contain tautologies or contradictions. For example, the agenda of the court case is \(A = \{p, \neg p, q, \neg q, p \wedge q, \neg (p \wedge q)\}\). Dietrich and List (2007a) showed that, when the agenda is sufficiently rich (like, for instance, the agenda of the court decision or \(\{p, \neg p, q, \neg q, p \to q, \neg (p \to q)\}\)), the only judgment aggregation rules satisfying the desiderata below are dictatorships. An aggregation function is a dictatorship when, for any input, the collective outcome is taken to be the individual judgment of one (and the same) individual, i.e., the dictator. In a dictatorial aggregation function all individual inputs but the dictator’s are ignored. A judgment set is a consistent and complete set of formulae \(J \subseteq A\). A judgment set is complete if, for any element \(\varphi\) of the agenda, either \(\varphi\in A\) or \(\neg \varphi\in A\) (that is, any item of the agenda has to be accepted of rejected). Given a group of n individuals, a profile is a n-tuple of individual judgment sets \(\langle J_1, \ldots, J_n \rangle\). Finally, a judgment aggregation rule F is a function that assigns to each profile \(\langle J_1, \ldots, J_n\rangle\) a collective judgment set \(F(J_1, \ldots, J_{n}) \subseteq A\). The conditions imposed on F are the following: