Talk:Absolute majority

Definition
If an absolute majority doesn't include abstentions/absences, then what is it called when there is a majority of the entire voting body? (This was the case when Turkey's parliament voted to help the U.S./U.K. "coalition" in Iraq, and the majority voted in favor, but if failed because their rules required a majority of every member, including ones who didn't vote.)  &#8211;radiojon 00:13, 2003 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * A late answer... this would be a "majority of all the members" rather than "a majority of those members present and voting".138.67.12.23 21:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * An absolute majority is a majority of the entire body. A majority of just those voting is a simple majority.  Check Robert's Rules. Pmadrid 01:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cite your sources
Can someone please independently cite the use of this term? I attempted to verify some of the information in this article and was unable to do so. A google search returned only Wikipedia and its mirrors or use of the phrase in a more general sense, not in ways consistent with the definition in this article. It did not turn up in any of my old textbooks, either. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 01:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguous term
"Absolute majority" is, by its nature, ambiguous. Some people use it to refer to a majority, as opposed to a plurality. It can mean:


 * A majority (two definitions).
 * A majority of the voters that are present or participate, including those voters that abstain.
 * A majority of the entire membership.
 * A majority of the fixed membership.

I really think this one needs a major rewrite.

--J. J. in PA 19:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Should majority of the entire membership go in its own separate article, do you think? I hesitate to keep this article within the purview of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure since the term "absolute majority" does not appear in RONR. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC on merge/redirect to supermajority
''Please place comments within your own headed section and avoid threaded discussions within others' sections.
 * Should this unreferenced article be redirected to its parent topic, which already contains a sizeable section covering precisely the same ground, supermajority?

Comments

 * Comments from (involved) TreasuryTag - This article is an exceptionally uselss content fork. Textbook case, in fact. There is absolutely nothing to suggest the notability of the 'absolute majority' as a topic in itself. The article is very short and completely unreferenced. I have yet to hear a good reason for not simply merging the useful material into our already existing article which covers precisely the same topic, supermajority. I would also like to take this opportunity to condemn for blind revert-warring without the slightest attempt at explanation or discussion. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► secretariat ─╢ 19:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge - While "absolute majority" is a valid topic, it is a clear subset of "supermajority", and since the Supermajority article is rather small (as is this Absolute majority article), it makes most sense to combine them into a single article. If there were a significant number of sources devoted to "absolute majority", that would  argue against a merger, but Im not seeing such sources.  If a time comes when that merged article becomes large, a WP:Content fork can happen.  --Noleander (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - If you want to delete an article you have to go for wp:prod or wp:afd. An editor are not entitled to simply blank an article just because you don't like it and I was fully entitled to revert for this. I did not blindly revert. TreasuryTag blindly reverted and wrongly accused me of failed to enter an edit summary when I had. You can of course boldly merge an article if you want to, although it is normal to propose mergers in this manner. It is obvious that the article is sourced. I can't see how you could conclude otherwise. Absolute majority is a sub-article not a content fork. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes an editor "are" entitled to redirect content-forks. I don't know why you keep mentioning WP:AFD despite me repeating that that's not appropriate for redirects. Perhaps it's because you're not listening. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► tortfeasor ─╢ 17:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Redirect It doesn't look like it is a distinct enough topic to justify a fork from the super majority article. Monty  845  06:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was invited here by the RFC bot but have just now had a chance to comment. I realize that TT has already merged and redirected as proposed, but the prior version of this article was a content fork and a redirect to supermajority makes much more sense, therefore I support the proposed (and completed) resolution. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into supermajority. Jonathunder (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolute majority - redirect
The most common meaning of Absolute majority is "more than half", that is a majority. (Relative majority = plurality) I propose this page should redirect to Majority, not supermajority as now there are a lot of redirects going to the wrong article Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)