• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Definition of majority in American Politics?

Defintion of majority in American Politics.

  • You have a majority if you have over 50% of the vote.

    Votes: 16 66.7%

  • You can have a majority under 50% if you have more votes than any other person

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Total voters
    24
Fearandloathing said:
So, what happens when a congressional candidate wins with 40% against two candidates? is he declared a winner even though he does not have a majority?
Click to expand...

He won because he had the majority. He did not achieve that state's 50%+1 if they have one. The wiki for plurality explains it:

Majority vs. plurality[edit]

In international institutional law, a "simple majority" (also a "majority") vote is more than half of the votes cast (disregarding abstentions) among alternatives; a "qualified majority" (also a "supermajority") is a number of votes above a specified percentage (e.g. two-thirds); a "relative majority" (also a "plurality") is the number of votes obtained that is greater than any other option; and an "absolute majority" is a number of votes "greater than the number of votes that possibly can be obtained at the same time for any other solution",[Notes 1] when voting for multiple alternatives at a time.[4][Notes 2]

Henry Watson Fowler suggests that the American terms, "plurality" and "majority" offer single-word alternatives for the corresponding two-word terms in British English, "relative majority" and "absolute majority", and that in British English "majority" is sometimes understood to mean "receiving the most votes" and can therefore be confused with "plurality".[1][Notes 3] William Poundstone observes that systems, which allow choosing by a plurality of votes, are more vulnerable to the spoiler effect—where two or more similar choices each draw fewer votes than an unsimilar choice that would have lost to any individual similar choice on its own—than systems, which require a majority.[5]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting)
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
So, tell me then, why didn't they use "plurality"? At all. It's nowhere in the constitution. Maybe because the British, you know, where the language came to us from, use "majority". They modify what type of majority by using "absolute majority", or "relative majority". Majority itself meaning simply: the greater number.
Click to expand...

They didn't need to use the word plurality. They said that if the person that had the most delegates did not have a majority, then the House would choose between the five top delegate winners. Under your definition the person with the most delegates can't not have a majority.
 
Fearandloathing said:
So, what happens when a congressional candidate wins with 40% against two candidates? is he declared a winner even though he does not have a majority?
Click to expand...

Of course he's a winner if he gets more votes than any other candidate. He wins with a plurality, not a majority. This isn't that complicated.
 
Anagram said:
In no cases did they not have more than 50% of the electoral college delegates, which is what that clause was referring to.
Click to expand...

Heh, that's because of how state delegates are assigned. They go to the majority (classic definition) candidate. We're talking presidential elections.
 
clownboy said:
Heh, that's because of how state delegates are assigned. They go to the majority (classic definition) candidate.
Click to expand...

They do go to the plurality candidate that's true, (except Maine and Nebraska), but that really has nothing to do with that clause in the Constitution.
 
Redress said:
I wonder what the difference is between an "elector" and a "voter" is? Think that might be important to know?
Click to expand...

What kind of an elector? A Presidential elector? or just a general elector? If it's the latter, an elector is one who possesses all of the qualifications necessary to vote. A voter is somebody who actually votes. All voters are electors. All electors aren't voters.
 
Anagram said:
They didn't need to use the word plurality. They said that if the person that had the most delegates did not have a majority, then the House would choose between the five top delegate winners. Under your definition the person with the most delegates can't not have a majority.
Click to expand...

Yes they did, if they had redefined the word like apparently we have currently. Read the wiki I quoted on plurality.
 
Wiggen said:
What kind of an elector? A Presidential elector? or just a general elector? If it's the latter, an elector is one who possesses all of the qualifications necessary to vote. A voter is somebody who actually votes. All voters are electors. All electors aren't voters.
Click to expand...

Context dude, context. Check out the word in the constitution, in reference to a majority. That is, follow the conversation...
 
clownboy said:
Yes they did, if they had redefined the word like apparently we have currently. Read the wiki I quoted on plurality.
Click to expand...

So you're disapproving of a definition change that has existed at least since the founding of our country? Since the 50% definition was the one used in the Constitution. I don't know why you'd prefer the definition that is sometimes used in Britain over the one that is always and always has been used in this country. Even in Britain they seem to be using the 50%+ definition as all of the articles I read about the SNP's dominance in Scotland last election used the 50%+ definition.

I specifically framed the question in American politics though, so I would say this is all irrelevant.
 
Anagram said:
Just because Clownboy and I have been derailing a different thread, I feel it may be easier to settle here. In American politics does getting a majority mean to get over 50% of the total vote or does it mean just to have more votes than any other candidate? Should be a pretty simple question.
Click to expand...

Statistically speaking, it's half plus 1, essentially.
 
clownboy said:
You'll notice that nowhere in the constitution is the word "plurality" used (those fellows were pretty much caught up on the English language). It's always majority. In fact show me where any state uses plurality in their primary rules. They say instead, must attain 50%+1, or over 50%.

When the contest is between two contestants, the majority winner will have over 50%. However, there are other parties in presidential elections, and cases like the primaries where there are more than two contestants. The majority winner is the one who gets the greatest number.
Click to expand...

No. It's not, not if the winner has less than half the votes. I seriously doubt the people who wrote the constitution were as confused about that as you are, but if so it just proves they weren't infallible.
 
clownboy said:
Yes they did, if they had redefined the word like apparently we have currently. Read the wiki I quoted on plurality.
Click to expand...

They didn't 'redefine' any words and you don't get to either.
 
JANFU said:
If you read what I posted to Anagram you would see I agreed.
I offered up what many people think, no more no less than that.
While I can be damned simple at time, the definition of majority is within my grasp.
Click to expand...

No you offed up something that is blatantly false, which you are now claiming to always have known is false. Im sure some people believe in lizard people too however I would never offer it up as a theory just because some people believe in it.
 
American politics isn't based on a simple majority, it's based on getting the largest percentage of the vote. In any race with more than two candidates, it is entirely possible to get less than 50% of the overall vote and still have more votes than any of the other candidates, thus declaring one the winner.
 
Cephus said:
American politics isn't based on a simple majority, it's based on getting the largest percentage of the vote. In any race with more than two candidates, it is entirely possible to get less than 50% of the overall vote and still have more votes than any of the other candidates, thus declaring one the winner.
Click to expand...

True, but not what I was asking.
 
Anagram said:
Just because Clownboy and I have been derailing a different thread, I feel it may be easier to settle here. In American politics does getting a majority mean to get over 50% of the total vote or does it mean just to have more votes than any other candidate? Should be a pretty simple question.
Click to expand...

Over 50% of the total vote is a majority. Having less than 50% of the vote, but more than any other candidate, is a plurality. The difference is significant.

It's amazing to me that there really are people who don't get this.
 
Crovax said:
No you offed up something that is blatantly false, which you are now claiming to always have known is false. Im sure some people believe in lizard people too however I would never offer it up as a theory just because some people believe in it.
Click to expand...

If I was wrong I would admit it. I was not lying or playing kids games. I have admitted in the past when I was wrong. Take it what ever way you wish.
 
Last edited:
2+2=Fish.
 
Anagram said:
Just because Clownboy and I have been derailing a different thread, I feel it may be easier to settle here. In American politics does getting a majority mean to get over 50% of the total vote or does it mean just to have more votes than any other candidate? Should be a pretty simple question.
Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by majority. Do you mean the national vote or the electors?
 
joG said:
It depends on what you mean by majority. Do you mean the national vote or the electors?
Click to expand...

I don't think that matters. Just asking about the definition of the word majority.
 
Anagram said:
Just because Clownboy and I have been derailing a different thread, I feel it may be easier to settle here. In American politics does getting a majority mean to get over 50% of the total vote or does it mean just to have more votes than any other candidate? Should be a pretty simple question.
Click to expand...

Slick Willy didn't get 50% of the vote in 1992 or 1996. If it wasn't for Ross Perot Clinton probably wouldn't have won either election. I voted for door number two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom