I have to agree with the idea that it’s context dependent. But, to answer the OP’s question, it’s clearly wrong if it’s not a majority, so <50% is the first answer. I’d call it not controversial after 95%.
The more reasonable range is greater than 66.6% and 85%. from 85-95, some may argue, and some situations may not apply. And most people want something bigger than a majority for super majority, and a 2:1 is a reasonable start.
I don’t think supermajorities factor in except in politics. They aren’t a think outside of places where people vote. These are defined by rules. A vast majority could be more or less, really, as it’s intentionally imprecise.
Naw, “supermajorities” are a factor in business as well as politics. They show up in shareholder agreements, often as a requirement to limit the possibility of a takeover. There is of course no set definition of the term, but from 60-75% are the most common ones.
Yeah, I used the wrong word. It’s still a voting sort of thing, really, is what I mean. You know, the shareholders vote for something, and their agreements say that a certain percentage must agree for the motion to carry.
When it comes to, say, an opinion poll, I’d say there’s no such thing. Only if one has been defined ahead of time (by the agreements, in the above case) can one exist.
I was puzzled as to your wide range at first, but as the conversation has progressed, I think you are spot on with this, again showing the importance of context.
I disagree. Although I think the actual probability is conditioned heavily by context and can fall in a wide range depending on expectations, I don’t think that there is any connotation of “unbiased”. I think “fair chance” is synonymous with “reasonable chance”, i.e. what Richard said -
As for the Bay Of Pigs
I disagree strongly with Chronos. In this context, I think describing something has having a “fair chance” of success implies that it is a reasonable policy option, worthy of consideration. Clearly 15% would not qualify. For something with 15% chance of success to qualify, either the military/political situation would have to be utterly desperate, and/or the consequences of the attempt failing would have to be negligible.
A situation where a <15% chance of success might be described as a “fair chance”? Grandma has forgotten her computer password. Could it be her grandson’s name or birthday? There’s a fair chance that could be it.
That’s fair enough. It would be weirdly and inappropriately technical to use the term “supermajority” when, say, discussing something like “the vast majority of choices in this situation are likely to end in disaster”.
But then, it would be oddly technical to assign a precise percentage, or even a range, to such a phrase, as well. If such a thing absolutely has to be done though, no harm in importing concepts from business and politics …
Incidentally, there’s also a poll here you can look at for comparison.
I still think context has little to do with characterizing something as “vast majority” or not. For me, that characterization is independent of context, much in the same way “majority” is.
So a majority of respondents in that particular poll vote that “vast majority” starts at least at 81%, and 83% of respondents think it starts at least at 71%. (And this is discarding the fact that about 5% of the respondents had a bullshit answer to the question)
I don’t think I agree with this approach, because the terms supermajority and vast majority are just in different categories. Supermajority is, as you say, a technical term. The number is not always the same, but it is specified by the governing procedural regulations. In other words, the relevant supermajority percentage is something with a GQ answer.
“Vast majority” is just part of colloquial language, open to some degree of subjective interpretation, something with an IMHO answer.
In principle, procedural rules could require a 90% supermajority for some purpose (implausible in politics, but not in a shareholder vote). In that case, it might be true that the vast majority (85%) vote in favor, but fail to achieved the required supermajority.
Which is why I’m just using the term as an approximation, and using the “common” supermajority percentages.
It is possible for a supermajority to range from 51% to 99%, but by far the most common are 60-75%, establishing a handy, but not technically accurate or legally binding in any way, handle on what is ‘more than a majority’ and ‘less than a vast majority’, other that (say) ‘well, that percentage feels about right’.
That is, of course, simply my way of arriving at a subjective IMHO answer.
Yes, I suppose you can say an incontrovertible “vast majority” of respondents say 66% and up.
Though it you were using 67% as the benchmark for “vast majority” then the vast majority of respondents there start at the 76% level. (73% of respondents say that “vast majority” comprises a percentage of at least 76%).
I think it also depends on whether the measure is statistical or not.
If we are talking about a sample from a population, in my mind the requirement for “vast majority” is lower-to me perhaps 67-70%. Because it is an estimate.
If we are talking about polling the entire population-for instance a vote in the Senate, then the meaning changes somewhat. Vast majority in this cast would be 75-80%.
A ‘vast majority’, and I’m getting extremely technical here with mathematical and scientific terms, is a smidgeon or perhaps a teensy bit more than ‘most’.
