A news item involving Plurality (voting) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 September 2012. |
A news item involving Plurality (voting) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 18 September 2012. |
A news item involving Plurality (voting) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 September 2012. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should this be a Wiktionary entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.94.87 ( talk) 21:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've de-stubbed. I'm slightly concerned that what I've written may be FPTP-specific rather than plurality-specific; I'd appreciate feedback on this article. TSP 11:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Let's be careful not to be too duplicitous of content that belongs in plurality voting system. Scott Ritchie 18:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I have suggested that Plurality voting system be merged into Plurality. Plurality voting system has better content, but Plurality is a better name for the article. In addition to explaining plurality elections, Plurality will allow us to explain the concept as it occurs outside the context of voting. Squideshi 14:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I had a little alarm go off in my head while reading this article when I realized I "agreed" with it. I found the information and perspective to be generally accurate, but then I realized that I myself (having more or less minority political opinions) have quite skewed viewpoints regarding the issue.
The section near the end of the article suggests the problem with "tactical" (or as it's always been known to me, "strategic") voting - namely, that it doesn't alwyas reflect one's true voting intentions. This indeed is often the case; or so it seems to me. Regardless, it suggests that it IS often the case, and indeed this entire page seems to be written from a perspective similar to my own. Because I, of course, believe quite strongly, and because I want my own beliefs, based on logic or otherwise, should be prevented fairly, I think this page needs to be looked at so far as neutrality and justification are concerned. -- Jammoe 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe the example used to show plurality, while being very good about giving a worldview, is confusing to Americans (people from the U.S.) because we commonly call ourselves "Americans" as a nationality. It needs to be broken down or written better, so it does not equate "Americans" as "people from the North or South American continents." I would recommend giving some other continent as an example for a continental plurality to avoid this problem.
Guroadrunner 19:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Quoted from the article by the editor signed just above
end quotation
The current text, in context, seems to suggest that "simple majority" is used to mean "plurality" in American usage, but with absences and abstentions not considered. I don't think that's the intent of the passage -- I think it wants to say that a simple majority in American usages is more than half of all votes actually cast (as opposed to an absolute majority, which I take it would be "more than half of those having the right to vote"). The text should be clarified -- maybe someone who's more sure of the distinction between "simple" and "absolute" in American usage should do this. (I wouldn't have made that distinction myself -- I would just have said that a simple majority is more than half of votes cast, as opposed to a supermajority, which might be 60% or 2/3 or 3/4 or something.) -- Trovatore 00:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I moved the following from the article (feel free to move it back.) This section is not about the "meaning" of plurality. The "meaning" that is used is the same for all three bullet examples - plurality is the group with the largest number but still below a majority count. If anything, this example is a demonstration showing that there are different pluralities depending on what one is measuring. ~
Parlirules (
talk) 13:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Cut from the article by the editor signed just above
The meaning of "plurality" depends on how the elements are categorized. For instance, in a room with 12 people: three Germans; two English people; two English-speaking Canadians; one Mexican, two Guatemalans; and two Americans:
However, only the seven North Americans, when considered by continent, constitute a majority (more than six). In the context of voting, this ambiguity can lead to
coalitions of greater or lesser stability.
end import
This section ( #U.S. usage) has no citations and is probably not supportable with accurate citations. In United States usage and quite possibly throughout the English speaking world, to borrow from Gertrude Stein, a majority is a majority is a majority is a majority. It simply means "more than half". The question then needs to be asked, "more than half" of what? In voting for a candidate or proposition the default meaning for majority is more than half of the votes cast. (One could cite a reference here from the voting section of any major book on parliamentary procedure.)
However, sometimes a different voting percentage is needed/required/ordered. This could be two-thirds, four-fifths, etc. It has become more commonplace to call any percentage requirement over majority, a "super-majority." Not really a useful term in my view, but one can't argue against the coining of new words once they become popular. ["Super Tuesday", "Super-Size"] Another aspect of determining majority is of what basis. The term "absolute majority" has been coined to mean a majority of all those that could vote (in an organized society or legislature this is the total count of members.) This is a higher requirement than majority. (One could also call "absolute majority" a type of "super-majority", but most people don't think of it in this way, so let's not confuse the issue by pointing out the impreciseness of evolving language.)
Once use of the term "absolute majority" began to be established, which was done to distinguished it from "majority", language did its thing again, and people were no longer content to understand "majority" as "majority", so human nature being what it is, many started to use the term "simple majority" as a replacement for "majority" because they felt it was important that both concepts have the same number of adjectives. Humans have an innate need for symmetry.
Where was I? I was making a point here, I think. Yes, regarding the sentence below. Majority and simple majority are pretty much the same thing, certainly in American (or US usage), the difference is that there are more citations defining "majority" than there are defining "simple majority." ... also, the use of "strict" is perhaps the wrong term, a "higher requirement" in terms of votes might be more appropriate.
I have not put all this on the web page because (a) I don't have time at the moment to find the citations (and some of this is clearly opinion) and (b) this article is about plurality, not majority (or various forms of majority.) So I moved it here for the time being. ~
Parlirules (
talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Cut from the article by the editor signed just above
In
United States usage, a simple majority does not include abstentions or absent members. It is more strict than a plurality vote, but less strict than an
absolute majority vote.
citation needed
end import
This can't be right: if v=100 and n=3, the smallest possible plurality ought to be 34 (34+33+33=100). But (100+3)/3 = 34.3, which rounds up to 35. What should it read - "rounded to the nearest whole number" perhaps? -- Blisco ( talk) 15:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first para states, "A plurality of votes is ... less than a majority of the vote." This contradicts the first sentence which states "a plurality vote is the largest number of votes ..." with no indication it must be less than a majority. It also contradicts the majority article which states "A plurality is not necessarily a majority" (my emphasis). Nurg ( talk) 03:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've tidied the article up a little, based on reading the whole Talk page. I don't think that what I've done steps on anyone's toes, and I hope it gives the article a little more clarity. I now have a request - can anyone clearly and concisely sum up what the main thrust of this article is supposed to be, and how it's supposed to be distinct from the plurality voting system article. I realise there's been conversations about this before, but the article probably needs a really clear vision if we're going to improve it beyond what it is now. Petemyers ( talk) 20:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, this constitutes original research, and so I've moved it here:
—20:50, 15 October 2008 Petemyers [retrieved from Revision history by Agent Orange
Cut from the article by the editor signed just above
The smallest possible plurality is (v+n-1)/n, rounded up, where v is the number of members of the group (voters) and n is the number of categories (candidates). Thus in a five-candidate plurality election, just over 20 percent of the vote can theoretically win. If n is 2 then the plurality becomes a majority.
end import
Uh, there's some unnecessary stuff in this article, particularly about the Canadian way of expressing plurality". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.190.55 ( talk) 07:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, from a British perspective, that I've never come across this use of the word "plurality" over here. It just means more than 1. Peter jackson ( talk) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
When I read this, I was struck by the redundancy of the second paragraph. The first part of the first sentence in the paragraph is exactly the same as a sentence a few lines before in the first paragraph, and most of the rest is about the same. There is, however, some new information about English usage at the end. Perhaps that part should be merged with one of the other paragraphs and the rest of the paragraph should be deleted? The Grand Rans ( talk) 15:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
As a British English speaker I don't recognise 'majority' meaning 'plurality'. 'majority' is usually described as '50% plus one'. Referencing a 45 year old 'A Dictionary of Modern English Usage' doesn't really do it for me. 米 ( talk) 19:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
... A few days later it occurs to me that the biggest problem here is the focus entirely on elections (of legislators, primarily).
This article, and siblings such as majority (voting), should begin with the basic instance of voting, which is the resolution of binary questions such as whether to approve some proposition. Voters may have more than two options such as {Aye, Nay, abstain} and some eligible voters may be absent.
May one say that in British, Welsh, North American, Canadian, and U.S. usage (now or formerly mentioned in the article regard to elections)? What does it mean? -- P64 ( talk) 16:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
(quote) where 100 votes are cast for three candidates, with Alice polling 40 votes, Bob 31, and Carol 29. A Briton might say "Alice won with a majority of 9" while a Canadian might say "Alice won with a plurality."
This USAmerican would say Alice won with a plurality of 40 votes or 40%. In some contexts I would say "40% of votes cast" and the like. I would not call 9 votes, or 9%, etc, the plurality or the majority or any adjective majority; only the "margin", the "difference", etc.
This is a tertiary issue, however. Quantification such as "majority of 9 votes" and "51% majority" should be covered separately from the voting outcomes that constitute plurality, majority, etc.
First: voting in binary decision making (see "Voting and elections" just above).
Second: regarding elections, when do the Briton and Canadian (and perhaps others) agree and when disagree that "Alice polled a majority"? or garnered a plurality?
Third: when Alice polls a majority in the British sense, how do the Britons quantify it? And so on for the Canadian, the plurality, etc. -- P64 ( talk) 17:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
"When there are only two choices, the plurality choice is also the majority choice." [citation needed]
Why is a citation needed for the above statement? It's simple logic that if there are only two options and one is chosen, that one must have received both the plurality and majority of votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.223.131 ( talk) 17:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There have been disruptive edits by an IP address "216.16.241.140" deleting the word "plurality" on this page, and other WP articles. This user seems to think that the word "plurality" is a synonym for "diversity". The following is the definition of "plurality" according to Encyclopedia Britannica: "Plurality system, electoral process in which the candidate who polls more votes than any other candidate is elected. It is distinguished from the majority system, in which, to win, a candidate must receive more votes than all other candidates combined. Election by a plurality is the most common method of selecting candidates for public office". [1] Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 21:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
References
A news item involving Plurality (voting) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 September 2012. |
A news item involving Plurality (voting) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 18 September 2012. |
A news item involving Plurality (voting) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 September 2012. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should this be a Wiktionary entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.94.87 ( talk) 21:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've de-stubbed. I'm slightly concerned that what I've written may be FPTP-specific rather than plurality-specific; I'd appreciate feedback on this article. TSP 11:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Let's be careful not to be too duplicitous of content that belongs in plurality voting system. Scott Ritchie 18:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I have suggested that Plurality voting system be merged into Plurality. Plurality voting system has better content, but Plurality is a better name for the article. In addition to explaining plurality elections, Plurality will allow us to explain the concept as it occurs outside the context of voting. Squideshi 14:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I had a little alarm go off in my head while reading this article when I realized I "agreed" with it. I found the information and perspective to be generally accurate, but then I realized that I myself (having more or less minority political opinions) have quite skewed viewpoints regarding the issue.
The section near the end of the article suggests the problem with "tactical" (or as it's always been known to me, "strategic") voting - namely, that it doesn't alwyas reflect one's true voting intentions. This indeed is often the case; or so it seems to me. Regardless, it suggests that it IS often the case, and indeed this entire page seems to be written from a perspective similar to my own. Because I, of course, believe quite strongly, and because I want my own beliefs, based on logic or otherwise, should be prevented fairly, I think this page needs to be looked at so far as neutrality and justification are concerned. -- Jammoe 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe the example used to show plurality, while being very good about giving a worldview, is confusing to Americans (people from the U.S.) because we commonly call ourselves "Americans" as a nationality. It needs to be broken down or written better, so it does not equate "Americans" as "people from the North or South American continents." I would recommend giving some other continent as an example for a continental plurality to avoid this problem.
Guroadrunner 19:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Quoted from the article by the editor signed just above
end quotation
The current text, in context, seems to suggest that "simple majority" is used to mean "plurality" in American usage, but with absences and abstentions not considered. I don't think that's the intent of the passage -- I think it wants to say that a simple majority in American usages is more than half of all votes actually cast (as opposed to an absolute majority, which I take it would be "more than half of those having the right to vote"). The text should be clarified -- maybe someone who's more sure of the distinction between "simple" and "absolute" in American usage should do this. (I wouldn't have made that distinction myself -- I would just have said that a simple majority is more than half of votes cast, as opposed to a supermajority, which might be 60% or 2/3 or 3/4 or something.) -- Trovatore 00:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I moved the following from the article (feel free to move it back.) This section is not about the "meaning" of plurality. The "meaning" that is used is the same for all three bullet examples - plurality is the group with the largest number but still below a majority count. If anything, this example is a demonstration showing that there are different pluralities depending on what one is measuring. ~
Parlirules (
talk) 13:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Cut from the article by the editor signed just above
The meaning of "plurality" depends on how the elements are categorized. For instance, in a room with 12 people: three Germans; two English people; two English-speaking Canadians; one Mexican, two Guatemalans; and two Americans:
However, only the seven North Americans, when considered by continent, constitute a majority (more than six). In the context of voting, this ambiguity can lead to
coalitions of greater or lesser stability.
end import
This section ( #U.S. usage) has no citations and is probably not supportable with accurate citations. In United States usage and quite possibly throughout the English speaking world, to borrow from Gertrude Stein, a majority is a majority is a majority is a majority. It simply means "more than half". The question then needs to be asked, "more than half" of what? In voting for a candidate or proposition the default meaning for majority is more than half of the votes cast. (One could cite a reference here from the voting section of any major book on parliamentary procedure.)
However, sometimes a different voting percentage is needed/required/ordered. This could be two-thirds, four-fifths, etc. It has become more commonplace to call any percentage requirement over majority, a "super-majority." Not really a useful term in my view, but one can't argue against the coining of new words once they become popular. ["Super Tuesday", "Super-Size"] Another aspect of determining majority is of what basis. The term "absolute majority" has been coined to mean a majority of all those that could vote (in an organized society or legislature this is the total count of members.) This is a higher requirement than majority. (One could also call "absolute majority" a type of "super-majority", but most people don't think of it in this way, so let's not confuse the issue by pointing out the impreciseness of evolving language.)
Once use of the term "absolute majority" began to be established, which was done to distinguished it from "majority", language did its thing again, and people were no longer content to understand "majority" as "majority", so human nature being what it is, many started to use the term "simple majority" as a replacement for "majority" because they felt it was important that both concepts have the same number of adjectives. Humans have an innate need for symmetry.
Where was I? I was making a point here, I think. Yes, regarding the sentence below. Majority and simple majority are pretty much the same thing, certainly in American (or US usage), the difference is that there are more citations defining "majority" than there are defining "simple majority." ... also, the use of "strict" is perhaps the wrong term, a "higher requirement" in terms of votes might be more appropriate.
I have not put all this on the web page because (a) I don't have time at the moment to find the citations (and some of this is clearly opinion) and (b) this article is about plurality, not majority (or various forms of majority.) So I moved it here for the time being. ~
Parlirules (
talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Cut from the article by the editor signed just above
In
United States usage, a simple majority does not include abstentions or absent members. It is more strict than a plurality vote, but less strict than an
absolute majority vote.
citation needed
end import
This can't be right: if v=100 and n=3, the smallest possible plurality ought to be 34 (34+33+33=100). But (100+3)/3 = 34.3, which rounds up to 35. What should it read - "rounded to the nearest whole number" perhaps? -- Blisco ( talk) 15:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first para states, "A plurality of votes is ... less than a majority of the vote." This contradicts the first sentence which states "a plurality vote is the largest number of votes ..." with no indication it must be less than a majority. It also contradicts the majority article which states "A plurality is not necessarily a majority" (my emphasis). Nurg ( talk) 03:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've tidied the article up a little, based on reading the whole Talk page. I don't think that what I've done steps on anyone's toes, and I hope it gives the article a little more clarity. I now have a request - can anyone clearly and concisely sum up what the main thrust of this article is supposed to be, and how it's supposed to be distinct from the plurality voting system article. I realise there's been conversations about this before, but the article probably needs a really clear vision if we're going to improve it beyond what it is now. Petemyers ( talk) 20:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, this constitutes original research, and so I've moved it here:
—20:50, 15 October 2008 Petemyers [retrieved from Revision history by Agent Orange
Cut from the article by the editor signed just above
The smallest possible plurality is (v+n-1)/n, rounded up, where v is the number of members of the group (voters) and n is the number of categories (candidates). Thus in a five-candidate plurality election, just over 20 percent of the vote can theoretically win. If n is 2 then the plurality becomes a majority.
end import
Uh, there's some unnecessary stuff in this article, particularly about the Canadian way of expressing plurality". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.190.55 ( talk) 07:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, from a British perspective, that I've never come across this use of the word "plurality" over here. It just means more than 1. Peter jackson ( talk) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
When I read this, I was struck by the redundancy of the second paragraph. The first part of the first sentence in the paragraph is exactly the same as a sentence a few lines before in the first paragraph, and most of the rest is about the same. There is, however, some new information about English usage at the end. Perhaps that part should be merged with one of the other paragraphs and the rest of the paragraph should be deleted? The Grand Rans ( talk) 15:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
As a British English speaker I don't recognise 'majority' meaning 'plurality'. 'majority' is usually described as '50% plus one'. Referencing a 45 year old 'A Dictionary of Modern English Usage' doesn't really do it for me. 米 ( talk) 19:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
... A few days later it occurs to me that the biggest problem here is the focus entirely on elections (of legislators, primarily).
This article, and siblings such as majority (voting), should begin with the basic instance of voting, which is the resolution of binary questions such as whether to approve some proposition. Voters may have more than two options such as {Aye, Nay, abstain} and some eligible voters may be absent.
May one say that in British, Welsh, North American, Canadian, and U.S. usage (now or formerly mentioned in the article regard to elections)? What does it mean? -- P64 ( talk) 16:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
(quote) where 100 votes are cast for three candidates, with Alice polling 40 votes, Bob 31, and Carol 29. A Briton might say "Alice won with a majority of 9" while a Canadian might say "Alice won with a plurality."
This USAmerican would say Alice won with a plurality of 40 votes or 40%. In some contexts I would say "40% of votes cast" and the like. I would not call 9 votes, or 9%, etc, the plurality or the majority or any adjective majority; only the "margin", the "difference", etc.
This is a tertiary issue, however. Quantification such as "majority of 9 votes" and "51% majority" should be covered separately from the voting outcomes that constitute plurality, majority, etc.
First: voting in binary decision making (see "Voting and elections" just above).
Second: regarding elections, when do the Briton and Canadian (and perhaps others) agree and when disagree that "Alice polled a majority"? or garnered a plurality?
Third: when Alice polls a majority in the British sense, how do the Britons quantify it? And so on for the Canadian, the plurality, etc. -- P64 ( talk) 17:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
"When there are only two choices, the plurality choice is also the majority choice." [citation needed]
Why is a citation needed for the above statement? It's simple logic that if there are only two options and one is chosen, that one must have received both the plurality and majority of votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.223.131 ( talk) 17:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There have been disruptive edits by an IP address "216.16.241.140" deleting the word "plurality" on this page, and other WP articles. This user seems to think that the word "plurality" is a synonym for "diversity". The following is the definition of "plurality" according to Encyclopedia Britannica: "Plurality system, electoral process in which the candidate who polls more votes than any other candidate is elected. It is distinguished from the majority system, in which, to win, a candidate must receive more votes than all other candidates combined. Election by a plurality is the most common method of selecting candidates for public office". [1] Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 21:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
References