Definition of Majority
<p>Over at <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com">Politics</a>, there is a <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16902/what-is-a-the-correct-way-of-expressing-a-vote-majority">question</a> about the definition of <em>majority.</em>  People seem to agree that the correct definition is <em>more than half</em> (called here the <em>classic definition),</em> but the question is about the erroneous attempts to express this in mathematical terms as <em>50% + 1</em> (called here the <em>incorrect definition,</em> but if someone can suggest a less prejudicial adjective I will edit the question accordingly).</p>

<p>This incorrect definition is erroneous because it yields incorrect results for odd numbers, implying that an extra vote is required compared to the classic definition.  The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority#Erroneous_definitions" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia article</a> uses the example of seven votes; because 50% + 1 of 7 is 4.5, a vote of 4 to 3 fails to meet the threshold specified by the incorrect definition, so would not pass the motion being voted on.  A more extreme example is that of three votes, where the incorrect definition implies a unanimous vote is required.</p>

<p>I have personally seen the incorrect definition used in corporate bylaws, but I am interested in knowing whether there are any government constitutional documents (including city charters and the like) that explicitly define majority as <em>50% + 1</em> or use some other questionable definition.</p>

<p>My principal question is about court rulings on such a definition:</p>

<ul>
<li>Has any court ruled that such a definition must be interpreted as a call for a (very limited) supermajority vote?</li>
<li>Has any court ruled that the definition is actually an incorrect attempt to specify a simple majority in the classic sense so it must be interpreted as requiring a simple majority?</li>
</ul>

<p>The law usually applies the "common use meaning" of a word when interpreting it.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, when used by itself, the term "majority" implies a simple majority: "more than half of the votes". Mathematically it would be ">50% of votes"</p>

<p>Since that is the common meaning of the word majority, then unless context dictates otherwise, the term majority will refer to >50% of votes</p>

<p>When other types of majorities are required by law, the relevant law will specifically state what type of majority vote is to be held, such as with super majorities (used in UNSC), and qualified majorities (used in EU voting).</p>

<p>With regards to your question:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Has any court ruled that such a definition must be interpreted as a call for a (very limited) supermajority vote?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I don't believe so. If a supermajority vote is intended it will have been written in the constitution/regulations of the group/body that requires such a vote. i.e it must say so in the law, or it is assumed it is a simple majority</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Has any court ruled that the definition is actually an incorrect attempt to specify a simple majority in the classic sense so it must be interpreted as requiring a simple majority?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure what this question is asking, but if it's asking whether courts have specifically denied the definition of majority to be "50% + 1" then I would say no, I would believe that most courts would immediately, without issue, assume a majority to be ">50%"</p>

voting