  This paper provides a general framework to explore the possibility of agenda
manipulation-proof and proper consensus-based preference aggregation rules, so
powerfully called in doubt by a disputable if widely shared understanding of
Arrow's `general possibility theorem'. We consider two alternative versions of
agenda manipulation-proofness for social welfare functions, that are
distinguished by `parallel' vs. `sequential' execution of agenda formation and
preference elicitation, respectively. Under the `parallel' version, it is shown
that a large class of anonymous and idempotent social welfare functions that
satisfy both agenda manipulation-proofness and strategy-proofness on a natural
domain of single-peaked `meta-preferences' induced by arbitrary total
preference preorders are indeed available. It is only under the second,
`sequential' version that agenda manipulation-proofness on the same natural
domain of single-peaked `meta-preferences' is in fact shown to be tightly
related to the classic Arrowian `independence of irrelevant alternatives' (IIA)
for social welfare functions. In particular, it is shown that using IIA to
secure such `sequential' version of agenda manipulation-proofness and combining
it with a very minimal requirement of distributed responsiveness results in a
characterization of the `global stalemate' social welfare function, the
constant function which invariably selects universal social indifference. It is
also argued that, altogether, the foregoing results provide new significant
insights concerning the actual content and the constructive implications of
Arrow's `general possibility theorem' from a mechanism-design perspective.
