Muddled Meaning of "Majority"
-- Paul McClintock, PRP
All parliamentarians surely know that a majority is "more than half" (RONR 10th ed., p.4, l.9). But there are many who think a majority is "50% plus one," or "51%," pseudo definitions which only muddle the truth and can cause real confusion. Here are some facts and figures which may help you elucidate the truth, and in some cases may help you to decide to keep silent because there could be no effective difference under the circumstances at hand. (Even in the latter case, it may still be instructive to point out the error in the defective definition.)
It should first be noted that some organizations have fractional voting (e.g., stock corporations and homeowner associations), and the discussion herein is not entirely applicable in such cases. The pseudo definitions still have problems in these cases, but the point at which problems begin is not subject to analysis without considering each specific situation. So, in the remaining discussion, assume that there is no fractional voting, and that a requirement for 2.5, or 2.0001, votes is inherently identical with a requirement for 3 votes, since merely 2 votes are not enough to satisfy the computed requirement.
It should also be noted that this discussion is not concerned with whether the majority is of those present and voting, or of those present, or of the entire membership. It has equal applicability to each of these situations, and is simply concerned with the majority of some total.
The "50% plus one" case is quite interesting. For every odd total, this formula produces exactly one more than the true majority. And in the case of a total of one, it produces an impossible vote requirement! E.g., a committee of one could never adopt anything, because one vote "for" and zero votes "against" has a total vote of one, 50% is 0.5, 50% plus one is 1.5, and the "for" vote is only one!
The "51%" formula is a bit more deceptive. You don't have problems with it until you have a total of 51 (51% of 51 is 26.01, requiring 27 votes; whereas 26 is the true majority). So if the total will always be 50 or less, it would not make any difference in the result. Starting at a total of 51, this pseudo formula gives a wrong result for every odd total, and starting at a total of 101 it gives a wrong result for every total.
Some people may thus be tempted to propose a variation, such as 50.1% or 50.01%. These also encounter problems eventually:
Formula Totals where formula yields a different result from true majority
50% + 1 1, 3, 5, 7,...
51% 51, 53, 55,...,99,101,102,103,104,...
50.1% 501,503,505,...,999,1001,1002,1003,1004,...
50.01% 5001,5003,5005,...,9999,10001,10002,10003,10004,...
Although most voting bodies that we encounter would have totals well under 5001, and close votes are infrequent, we have to remember that close votes even occur with large totals. The Times of India reported on May 14, 2004 a congressional race with 81,503 votes cast and the candidates' receiving 40,751 and 40,752 votes1. The majority winner would not have won under even a 50.001% "majority" rule. In 1839, Marcus Morton was elected governor of Massachusetts with 51,034 votes out of 102,066 votes cast2; under a 50.001% "majority" rule he would not have had the necessary majority.
If you find one of these problematic formulas defining "majority" in the bylaws, urge that the definition be changed to "more than half" as soon as possible, before problems ensue. If someone merely explains "majority" incorrectly, it is often worth speaking up to ensure that the "majority" rules.
--Paul McClintock is a computer programmer in the Seattle area, National Association of Parliamentarians District 7 Director, and American Institute of Parliamentarians Region 1 Lt. Governor. This article was first published in AIP’s Parliamentary Journal Vol XLVI No 2, April 2005.
1 See http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/675802.cms.
2 See http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/onevote.htm.
Parliamentary Journal, April 2005