The impossibility theorems of Arrow and Gibbard-Satterthwaite have been thought to rule out economic democracy and welfare economics. This paper demonstrates an information processing system which accords with the premises of these authors, and, consequently, proves their conclusions of impossibility to be untrue except as mathematical tautologies.

Interpersonal comparisons of utility scales have been considered to be meaningless. Therefore, utilitarian voting consisting of individual preference ratings on some utility scale as inputs has been considered unscientific. We show a particular method consisting of a hybrid of utilitarian and approval voting or choosing for which individual utility scales need not be comparable since the results are the same for any affine linear transformation of the utility scale. Therefore, the issue of interpersonal comparisons is moot.

A voting system is demonstrated which meets Arrow's 5 conditions and also satisfies the Gibbard-Satterthwaite demand for strategyproofness. The strategy is contained in the voting procedure itself so voters are incentivized to vote sincerely. This procedure allows for the circumventing of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.

We devise a method for political and economic decision making that’s applicable to the optimal selection of multiple alternatives from a larger set of alternatives. This method could be used, for example, in the selection of a committee or a parliament. The method combines utilitarian voting with approval voting and sets an optimal threshold above which an individual voter’s sincere ratings are turned into approval style votes. Those candidates above threshold are chosen in such a way as to maximize the individual’s expected utility for the winning set. We generalize range/approval hybrid voting which deals with a single member outcome to the case of multiple outcomes. The political case easily generalizes to the economic case in which a commodity bundle is to be chosen by each individual from an available set which is first chosen from a larger set by the amalgamation of the individual choosers’ inputs. As the set made available gets larger, the individual voter or chooser is more likely to gain greater utility or satisfaction because more of their above threshold candidates will be included in the winning set.