haxxiy said:
For the US and maybe Canada only. The remainder of the civilised world call it a relative or simple majority, including the United Kingdom. |
The term "simple majority" is occasionally used in Canada as well, but the term plurality is used far more frequently. I don't recall encountering the term "relative majority" before reading it in this thread. The word "plurality" gets used a great deal in Canadian politics as there are typically 3 to 5 parties electing members (unlike in the U.S. where there are typically only 2 parties winning seats). That makes it relatively rare under the antiquated and unfair first-past-the-post electoral system (that most of Canada, the U.S., and the UK share) for a candidate to win a majority of the vote, and almost unheard of for a party to win a majority of the vote. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's party won with 54% of the seats with only 39% of the vote, for example.
It's fair to say that 46% is not a "majority", as by your own acknowledgement it would have to be qualified as a "relative majority" or a "simple majority".
It seems to me that we have a perfectly good and accurate word in plurality, so I see no benefit (and some detriment) in using two words when one will do nicely.
And it further seems to me that we badly need electoral reform in all three countries mentioned in this post. :)
