Support NeoGAF

[Jacob]

While writing a post in a news thread for another forum, I got confused by someone's usage of this term and did a bit of poking around. As a political science major in the United States, I was taught that the term "simple majority" means 50% +1 of the votes cast were in favor of something. The term is mainly used in distinction from the concept of a supermajority, which often requires a threshold of two-thirds, but sometimes 60%. On the other hand, the guy I was talking with used simple majority to mean (paraphrasing here) that the option which received the most votes is the winner, even if it received less than 50%. However, I learned that this sort of victory is called a plurality. Confused, I checked a bunch of online dictionaries and found both definitions from different sources, but no sources acknowledging that there was another meaning (here are examples of both definitions from Oxford and Collins). At first I thought this might be a UK vs US language difference, but both Oxford and Collins are British, so I have no clue at all now.

Has anyone ever ran into this difference in usage before? Does anyone know if there is any rhyme or reason to when each definition is used? This is actually kinda bothering me because it feels like a potentially major cause for miscommunication, and the fact that major dictionaries don't acknowledge the multiple meanings of the term seems really weird.

 

[wildfire]

Language is fluid but I have never seen anybody confuse a plurality with a majority of any type before.

 

[Damaniel]

Plurality = the choice with the most, regardless of percentage
(simple) Majority = 50% + 1
Supermajority = some greater than 50% amount (60% or 2/3, generally)

Those are the way that I learned them, and I haven't heard of any other definitions.

 

[Coconut]

A majority of simpletons.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Plurality = the choice with the most, regardless of percentage
(simple) Majority = 50% + 1
Supermajority = some greater than 50% amount (60% or 2/3, generally)

Those are the way that I learned them, and I haven't heard of any other definitions.

This is correct.

 

[Jacob]

Plurality = the choice with the most, regardless of percentage
...
Those are the way that I learned them, and I haven't heard of any other definitions.

This is correct.

Not saying you guys are wrong, but this is even weirder to me because I'd always heard that part of the definition of "plurality" was that it was less than 50%. Merriam-Webster seems to agree, but Dictionary.com does not.

 

[RevoDS]

Plurality=50%+1 of votes
Simple majority=50%+1 of seats

 

[Cat Party]

I suppose a majority is by definition a plurality, but I've never heard it used in that way.

 

[benjipwns]

Was the discussion related to UK elections or similar? You can win a majority of Parliamentary seats with say, 35% of the vote or something. Because of pluralities in each of the constituencies, it's not a "true" majority.

 

[Damaniel]

Not saying you guys are wrong, but this is even weirder to me because I'd always heard that part of the definition of "plurality" was that it was less than 50%. Merriam-Webster seems to agree, but Dictionary.com does not.

The 'less than 50%' is generally implied. If a choice managed over 50%, I'd use majority instead of plurality.

 

[Hsieh]

Pluarility means who or what has the most votes casted. If there are three or more choices available, a winner doesn't need 50% of the vote. A pluarity only requires 50%+1 if there are only two choices available.

Simple majority means that the winner needs 50%+1 even if there are three or more choices.

If four people are running in an election and A has 40%, B has 20%, C has 20%, and D has 20%. A has a plurality and nobody has a majority.

In certain votes, you can vote yes, no, or abstain. In these sitations, the abstain votes are ignored for pluarity, but are counted as a no for a majority. A pluarity means that there are more yes votes than no votes. A majority means that there are more yes votes than both no and abstain votes.

 

[Jacob]

Was the discussion related to UK elections or similar? You can win a majority of Parliamentary seats with say, 35% of the vote or something. Because of pluralities in each of the constituencies, it's not a "true" majority.

It was about this BBC article about the Conservatives' proposed new rules for strikes. I'm not entirely sure which definition of "simple majority" they were using.

Mr Johnson has called for strikes to be unlawful unless 50% of staff in a workplace take part in a ballot.

Under the current law, a strike can take place if it is backed by a simple majority of those balloted.

The 'less than 50%' is generally implied. If a choice managed over 50%, I'd use majority instead of plurality.

Fair enough. I've just never heard anyone refer to plurality as encompassing victories with over 50% of the votes before.

In certain votes, you can vote yes, no, or abstain. In these sitations, the abstain votes are ignored for pluarity, but are counted as a no for a majority. A pluarity means that there are more yes votes than no votes. A majority means that there are more yes votes than both no and abstain votes.

Yeah, the role of abstentions seems to be significant in some definitions of simple majority (and related terms like "absolute majority", which also seems to have multiple meanings) that I've found today. I just find it really weird that most sources don't acknowledge that there is more than one. The only place I've found that mentions multiple meanings is this Wikipedia citation of a dictionary from 1965.

 

[CitizenVectron]

It was about this BBC article about the Conservatives' proposed new rules for strikes. I'm not entirely sure which definition of "simple majority" they were using.





Fair enough. I've just never heard anyone refer to plurality as encompassing victories with over 50% of the votes before.



Yeah, the role of abstentions seems to be significant in some definitions of simple majority (and related terms like "absolute majority", which also seems to have multiple meanings) that I've found today. I just find it really weird that most sources don't acknowledge that there is more than one. The only place I've found that mentions multiple meanings is this Wikipedia citation of a dictionary from 1965.

This isn't a question of plurality vs majority, it's a question of the number polled. They are saying you need a majority of workers to vote to strike, not just a majority of those who voted. So if you have 100 workers in a union you need 51 to strike. If only 80 voted but 41 voted to strike, then it wouldn't be valid (even though the majority who voted, voted in favour).

Union politics aside, I don't agree with that requirement. After all, when was the last time a majority of the actual public voted for a political party in an election? Only 50-70 of the public even votes (generally), depending where you live in the world. So it's very rare to have a true, majority mandate. Why should the same be held true for other democratic votes?

 

[Jacob]

This isn't a question of plurality vs majority, it's a question of the number polled. They are saying you need a majority of workers to vote to strike, not just a majority of those who voted. So if you have 100 workers in a union you need 51 to strike. If only 80 voted but 41 voted to strike, then it wouldn't be valid (even though the majority who voted, voted in favour).

That was how I interpreted the article, but the guy I was discussing it with thought they were changing the rules from requiring a plurality (which he called a simple majority) to requiring at least 50% of voters to favor the option. Then I went looking for precise definitions because of his word choice and ended up going down the linguistic rabbit hole that led to this thread.

Union politics aside, I don't agree with that requirement. After all, when was the last time a majority of the actual public voted for a political party in an election? Only 50-70 of the public even votes (generally), depending where you live in the world. So it's very rare to have a true, majority mandate. Why should the same be held true for other democratic votes?

It does seem like a pretty questionable rule, I agree.