Talk:Majority

Disambiguation page questioned

Doesn't seem like a disambiguation page to me... Wouter Lievens 20:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Me either; I'll remove the tag. Melchoir 21:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the scope?

There's a note about discussions of majority as applied to parliamentary procedure being beyond the scope of the article, a little ways down from where it's discussed (and where it was discussed before I expanded the discussion). Which is it? Jay Maynard 22:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a recent creep in American usage to majority being "the bulk", in speaking for instance of "a majority of the water"; but this is not in Webster, where it is implicit that "majority" is a countable and therefore integer number. Clearly the "majority of water" is a pomposity for "most of the water", and should be discouraged on grounds of style as well as erring.

Different Definitions

I added the definitions of majority from RONR and TSC.

For the record Wimpy the Gerbil came in second in the Undergraduate Student Government elections at the Pennsylvania State University in 1981-82. He beat the human candidate endorse by the Collegian student newspaper.

If someone can fix my citations, go ahead.

--J. J. in PA 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, you almost got the references right. Wikipedia markup can do it automagically. All you have to do, after putting in <ref> and </ref> tags in the entry, is add a section with a single <references/> tag, and presto! -- Jay Maynard 09:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary rules "one" vs. "a few."

The normal misstatement is "one more than half."

J. J. in PA 17:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It's been proposed to merge this article with Simple majority, which is an article on a voting system, not on the mathematical concept of majority. I've discussed this at Talk:Simple majority#New merge proposal: to Majority. --Abd (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Overall majority

Overall majority redirects to this article, but the term wasn't mentioned at all - I've added a definition and example to the lead. Tevildo (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Why this Tennessee example?

Can't we do better than this Tennessee example? It might be great for an article on some other topic, but I don't see how this could possibly be the best example for explaining what a majority is. I know this with certainty because the example never arrives at what the majority is voting for. The closest it comes to "illuminating" is what the last choice of the majority is. And that, by the way, is a concept that is not explained anywhere else in the article. For this situation to be an actually example of a majority, the scenario would need to be a vote to down-select the number of choices for the capital.

What I like least about the example is that Memphis does not appear to be all that much farther away from Nashville than, say, Knoxville is.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Majority of What?

I know that there are other different types of "majority", depending on whether the majority is of all cast ballots, majority of quorum present, or majority of eligible voters. Came to this page looking for proper terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.175.128.1 (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Majority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151221102100/http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/majority to https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/majority

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

50%+1 is listed as a erroneous method for determining a majority but states that it could be used in a way that it would not be

The section on 50%+1 says that methods is erroneous but then says that if you always round down in odd number situations then it works OK in both even and odd number situations to determine if you have a majority. Thus it seems to me that the example is only sometimes erroneous assuming you didn’t apply an always round down rule. Unless there is someone who can present an argument as to why it’s still erroneous even with rounding down then I will change it to reflect the fact it can sometimes be applied in an erroneous way if you round up but if always rounding down then it works. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

semiority 50% is a plurality (halfority or 50% + 0)

I've never heard this particular "erreoneous definition" offered for "majority" anywhere but in this Wikipedia article. Not sure why an erroneous definition needs to be included here at all. There could be, after all, a virtually infinite number of incorrect definitions.

This section also doesn't seem to have any citations confirming that this is a particularly common mistake. Perhaps the paragraph is best deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know in general, but it is common in Italy, even in institutional communications. In fact, it's used in the TV spot that is currently airing nationally to inform about the imminent referendums: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEcQTxCoCMo>. Which is quite sad. Fortunately, the wording in the Constitution is correct: <https://www.senato.it/istituzione/la-costituzione/parte-ii/titolo-i/sezione-ii/articolo-75>. About "always rounding down", yes, it works if you do that. But who says you should? Percentages of integers can be non-integer (think e.g. of monetary amounts) and I know of no general convention which says that, when a non-integer result doesn't make sense (as in the case of a number of people), you always round down. In the end, "at least 50% + 1" is a convoluted expression invented by someone for no apparent good reason, when "more than half", or even "more than 50%", is perfectly clear and correct. The rounding stuff seems like a forcing to be able to use it anyway, when, in fact, there's no reason to. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 15:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Definition

This page says majority is defined as more than half a total, however the OED says it is just the largest fraction (synonymous with plurality), why is this and why does “Robert’s rules” overrule the dictionary? Bean guy2 (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

OED includes both definitions for a majority. In informal speech, the term "majority" is confused with "plurality" so often that trying to distinguish them is hopeless. In more formal contexts, especially in voting or academic papers, it almost-always means "at least half". Wikipedia tends to lean more towards collecting academic knowledge, so this page exists mostly to redirect people who are confused by sentences like "the largest party was left without a majority".

If I could, I'd just completely replace the word "majority" with "overhalf" as the Anglish for this, and end the confusion. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

2A0D:3344:16C:3F10:87F0:30C3:CF22:DE6D (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Clarification of term Majority

I unfortunately missed the 8,9 May discussion at Template:Election box majority and would like to add my concerns here. I am British and studied our election results for years. I agree it would be confusing to change the long standing term Majority as used in the constituency results text and box e.g. Watford, however its misuse is becoming ever more important in the UK as it helps hide the failings of our system, which leads to the UK’s very poor performance in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_index also see US for explanation there. Majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority is correctly used and explained in its accepted sense of more than 50% of a total in Infobox-election, which includes the seats needed for a majority e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Japanese_general_election and in this case a coalition of 3 parties to gain a 70 seat majority i.e. winner or coalition’s seats – all others’ seats and here (237+34+4)-(480-237-34-4)

However, when more than 2 candidates receive votes in a Constituency, the winner can be elected with less than 50% votes, and if applying same majority arithmetic (winner’s vote – all others’ vote) it gives a negative “majority”; in UK 2024 GE 85% of MPs were elected on < 50% votes Electoral Reform Society and House of Commons Library - Detailed results by constituency (xlsx) and giving a final Government Majority of 172 seats (411-(650-411)) based on just 33.7% of the vote Electoral Reform Society, but of course no negative majorities are ever shown. Election results for Watford show some GEs with 2 candidates and others with many more, however the term Majority is used in all cases, although true with 2 candidates but not for the others. Negative majorities are not a good look, so we pretend that only 2 parties ever exist to reconcile this with an inappropriate voting system and retain the term Majority.

I think it's important to highlight that Majority (as commonly understood) is frequently a misleading term in the constituency result box. Because the figure compares only the 1^st and 2^nd places,  excluding all others if present, it is not necessarily a Majority, but a Relative Majority, Margin of Victory, or whatever you call it,  as explained in Majority#Related terms. Another issue is the frequent misuse of Majority in the general text e.g. Watford, which obviously cannot be undone.  Currently there is a link from Majority on the template, but the hover pop-up only explains the common understanding of majority and requires a click to obtain the Related terms explanation. I believe a prominent promote against Majority in the form of a  parenthetical note such as  “Where more than 2 candidates present click Majority for clarification” would help both issues. Alternatively the Majority article could be amended to broaden the hove pop-up and ideally introduce within Related terms the possibility of negative majorities if majority arithmetic is applied when <50% vote share is present. Tomb98 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources that support your assertions. When I added clarifying text to that section, I linked to and quoted from reliable sources, including dictionaries. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice / reminder – I’ve updated it and hope it’s better Tomb98 (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to  include / ask – are published spreadsheets such as House of Commons Library, with additional personal formula still acceptable references? Tomb98 (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The above looks like original research to me. What you need to provide to support your assertions are reliable sources, such as news articles, peer-reviewed papers, and reputable published books that make the claims that you are making. You can then propose specific changes to the text of this article. In your example of Watford, you claim that the word "majority" is misused, but it appears to be used with the definition "the difference in votes between the first-place candidate in an election and the second-place candidate", which is a definition used in published news articles in the UK and which is found in the OED. If you are arguing that The Independent and the OED are misusing the word "majority", Wikipedia is the wrong venue for doing so. It might help to read WP:RGW and the pages linked from there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to pursue this. I think we are at cross purposes – you say: “You can then propose specific changes to the text of this article” but I wasn’t proposing changes to the article. I think the misunderstand has arisen when I messaged you 14:24, 12 May 2025 about the “confusion over terminology and not just between countries.” and said “It’s a pity I didn’t get to discuss this with my fellow Brits,” and asked “Can you advise on a way to raise the argument with my fellow Brits” and you suggested “Talk:Majority is probably the right venue to follow up”.

Much of the very above was aimed at my fellow Brits, who had the impression that the term Majority was proposed for change in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 8#Template:Election box majority, rather than proposed change to the Majority article.

I’m pleased that there is now a link from Majority in the Election box Template, my only concern is that it requires a click to reveal the explanation about the inconsistent (better word than misuse) use of the term Majority i.e. sometimes as more than half of a total, while others as difference between 1^st and 2^nd place. I suggested additional text to prompt a click, but you didn’t think a parenthetical note appropriate. Assuming this still the case my other option is to propose specific changes to the text of the Majority article, but all I would want to change is the hover pop-up text to inspire a click. I assume the pop-up is always the first paragraph of the article, and cannot be the opening text of the page link, in this case at Related terms?

I hope this simplifies things and apologies for any misunderstandings.

Your comments about “original research” did inspire me to check with ChatGPT, its response included “Yes, there is criticism regarding the use of the term "majority" in UK elections. Critics argue that this definition can give a false impression of widespread support. For instance, an MP might win with a small plurality, yet still be described as having a "majority," even if the combined votes for other candidates surpass theirs. This issue is particularly pronounced in constituencies with multiple strong candidates, where the winning MP may secure the seat with less than 50% of the total vote.

The Electoral Reform Society has highlighted concerns about this terminology. In their analysis of the 2019 general election . .”

I checked the ERS but they just reiterated “Overall, 229 of the 650 MPs were elected on less than 50 percent of the constituency vote – in other words, 35 percent of all MPs lack majority support.” That was 2019 in 2024 it’s 85% !

It’s the tradition of accepting this sanitization of FPTP results that concerns me.

Thanks again for all your time and help. Tomb98 (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

First paragraph improvement

A suggestion to better reflect article’s content: change initial paragraph to add blue text and conclude paragraph, then continue as before:

A majority is more than half of a total [1]';however, the term is commonly used with other meanings, as explained in the following paragraphs and in "Related terms" section below. Voting basis, which relates to the set of members being considered within a vote, and Common errors are also considered.

A majority is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements. For example, if a group consists of 31 individuals, a majority would be 16 or more individuals, while having 15 or fewer individuals would not constitute a majority.

A majority is different from, but often confused with, a plurality, which is a subset larger than any other subset but not necessarily more than half the set. For example, if there is a group with 20 members which is divided into subgroups with 9, 6, and 5 members, then the 9-member group would be the plurality, but would not be a majority (as they have less than eleven members).

Why the suggestion: the term is commonly used in election results for assemblies worldwide in its normal sense i.e. number of seats needed to gain a majority, but inconsistently with a different meaning, for example in UK constituency results, when more than 2 candidates are present, to describe what is actually the margin of victory between the 1^st and 2nd candidate, otherwise known as Relative Majority etc. (examples in US too). Although the alternative definition of Majority is documented in the UK this is not commonly understood or explained, and the term Majority is taken at face value. This article does explain this inconsistency and I think it would be helpful to highlight this. Tomb98 (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the basic idea of this change. It would be helpful if you used color (e.g. with {{red}} and {{green}}) to indicate text to be removed and added, with text to remain shown in the normal black. I disagree with the word "inconsistently" and would remove it. Please ensure that any statements made in the new lead are supported by reliable sources somewhere in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback – I’ve updated with colour, but as one of the 8% colourblind males I chose Red (it could be green or even brown to me) and Blue, but as no deletion just blue. Agree “inconsistent” better left out, I only included it to highlight the term’s different meaning within the same topic of election results.  Also influenced by 1^st sentence of Related terms -  “Other related terms containing the word "majority" have their own meanings, which may sometimes be inconsistent in usage.” Tomb98 (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to add this text. The second sentence is not entirely comprehensible; you may benefit from reading it aloud. Also, using capital letters in the middle of a sentence is not something we do in English, except for proper nouns. I suggest something briefer, like however, the term is commonly used with other meanings, as explained in the "Related terms" section below. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks – agree “other meanings” reads better than “different meanings”, but the explanation of “other meanings” is given in 2 places: one in the now 2^nd and especially 3^rd para starting “A majority is different from ..” and other place in "Related terms" – perhaps article needs bit of restructure, but work with it as is. I’ve updated suggested change to make clearer. Tomb98 (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Move plurality information to “Related terms”

I agree that latest changes to the opening paragraph (blue) gives a clearer approach. However, the last paragraph of the opening section (red) describes what a plurality is, but here is saying one thing (although often confused) that a majority is not. Would it be better to include this plurality information in the “Related terms” section?

A majority is more than half of a total;[1] however, the term is commonly used with other meanings, as explained in the "Related terms" section below.

It is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements. For example, if a group consists of 31 individuals, a majority would be 16 or more individuals, while having 15 or fewer individuals would not constitute a majority.

A majority is different from, but often confused with, a plurality,[note 1] which is a subset larger than any other subset but not necessarily more than half the set. For example, if there is a group with 20 members which is divided into subgroups with 9, 6, and 5 members, then the 9-member group would be the plurality, but would not be a majority (as they have less than eleven members). Tomb98 (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. I have made some adjustments. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)