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)