# αυτοδυναμία = outright control, single-party majority, governing majority, (απόλυτη πλειοψηφία) full majority, absolute majority



## sarant (Jan 19, 2015)

Σε εκλογικά συμφραζόμενα βεβαίως. Νομίζω πως στα αγγλικά δεν υπάρχει μονολεκτικός όρος -ή κάνω λάθος; 
Absolute majority και τέτοια;


----------



## drsiebenmal (Jan 19, 2015)

Βρίσκω και κάτι one-party majority για το κοινοβούλιο της Νέας Ζηλανδίας.


----------



## nickel (Jan 19, 2015)

Άντε και *single-party majority*. Σε δύο λεξικά βρήκα _self-reliance_, αλλά μάλλον έκαναν λάθος.


----------



## cougr (Jan 19, 2015)

Επίσης: _outright control_


----------



## nickel (Jan 25, 2015)

Πώς αναφέρονται οι ξένοι στην *αυτοδυναμία*:

It is unclear whether Syriza has enough votes to govern the country alone.
Update:
The party is projected to win about 150 seats, just one short of an absolute majority, though officials say that number could change.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30975437

If Syriza is able to secure more than 150 seats on its own, it won’t need coalition partners and will have a freer hand in implementing its program
http://www.wsj.com/articles/syriza-poised-for-victory-in-greek-election-1422168982?tesla=y

with a chance of winning a full majority
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/25/us-greece-election-idUSKBN0KY00520150125

Προς το παρόν, κερδίζουν τα *full majority, absolute majority* (απόλυτη πλειοψηφία).


----------



## cougr (Jan 26, 2015)

Το Wall Street Journal ξέρει καλύτερα!

Votes were being tallied into the night, but a government projection gave about half the seats in Parliament to the opposition party Syriza, with a chance it could have outright control.


----------



## cougr (Jan 27, 2015)

Χρήσιμες είναι και οι διάφορες εκφράσεις με τις συνάψεις *to govern alone* / *to govern outright*.

Π.χ. ability/mandate/support/right/enough seats/votes to govern alone/outright.


----------



## pontios (Jan 27, 2015)

sarant said:


> Σε εκλογικά συμφραζόμενα βεβαίως. Νομίζω πως στα αγγλικά δεν υπάρχει μονολεκτικός όρος -ή κάνω λάθος;
> Absolute majority και τέτοια;



Για μονολεκτικό όρο, γιατί όχι το majority, σκέτο;

Greece's Syriza did not quite achieve majority. It fell 1 seat short of majority. It sounds fine to me.


----------



## nickel (Jan 27, 2015)

Για να μην μπερδευόμαστε με το *simple majority*, θα έλεγα.


----------



## pontios (Jan 28, 2015)

nickel said:


> Για να μην μπερδευόμαστε με το *simple majority*, θα έλεγα.



It's an important distinction, nickel.

However, re: the single term "majority, wherever it's being used; I think we can safely assume that it would be referring to (or even be short for) "majority government", or "majority government status" - and not to "simple majority". So there shouldn't be any confusion.
Not many (outside of the USA, say) would understand the term "simple majority", to be able to make the distinction you've made.
So, if there's no explanation given in a newspaper article regarding the single term (majority) being used, it could only be referring to majority government. It would be logical to assume that.

..and given that -
"a majority government is a government formed by a governing party that has an absolute majority of seats in the legislature or parliament in a parliamentary system" - it (majority) is therefore synonymous with absolute majority.

q.e.d. ;)

Maybe it's the single term that sarant was after?


----------



## cougr (Jan 28, 2015)

pontios said:


> .....Not many (outside of the USA, say) would understand the term "simple majority", to be able to make the distinction you've made......



This notwithstanding, the term "majority" used on it's own (as per your examples in #8, for instance) is too broad a term that unless further qualified or clarified can lead to ambivalence regarding its meaning. Even in the right context (eg. government elections) it wouldn't necessarily or even largely be connected to the notion of majority government.

Άλλο το _majority_ κι άλλο το _full/absolute/outright majority_ Q.E.D ;)


----------



## pontios (Jan 28, 2015)

I'm not arguing its merits, cougr, I just brought it up as a possible and acceptable single term equivalent, that's all - in response to the original post by sarant. 

If you google search "achieve a majority" you'll find plenty of results, and in all instances I've come across it is clear that "majority" always refers to (and is short for) "majority government" - when it applies to a party (or government) hoping to achieve an "absolute majority", in this instance. 

Semantically, by the way, what is the difference between:
Syriza aims for/hopes to achieve (a) majority in the upcoming election
or..
party X aims for/hopes to achieve (a) single-party majority. 
Isn't Syriza a single party?

By the same token, what should the word "majority" of "single-party "majority" connote? Doesn't the majority that I'm referring to mean exactly the same thing (as the "majority" of "single-party majority")? Shouldn't it mean the same thing (majority government in both instances)?

majority = majority
Syriza = single party

Again, I'm just talking about an acceptable single word term, that's all.


----------



## cougr (Jan 28, 2015)

It'd be easier if I just referred you back to post#9 but I'll have one last crack at explaining it.

As you are no doubt aware and as has been previously pointed out, the term "majority", when used politically or in the context of electoral systems, can denote different concepts and convey different meanings.

In the case of the query you put forth, the difference in meaning of the two sentences is this: 

In the case where a party is hoping for a "single-party majority" implies that they are hoping to achieve *more than half the overall seats* in which case they would have the mandate to *rule outright as a single party*.

In the case where they are hoping to achieve a "majority", could imply the above, however, due to the way that the term "majority" is bandied about by the media and others (see, for example, link in my above post), could also be interpreted to mean that they are hoping to *at least win the most seats of any competing party even if this meant winning less than half* and that they would be required to seek a coalition partner or to rule as a minority government. The latter interpretation being more likely in a situation where you have, for example, all the polls and pundits predicting that they've got no chance of winning outright (ie. more than half the seats) but are still in the race for a lesser win.


----------



## pontios (Jan 29, 2015)

cougr said:


> In the case where they are hoping to achieve a "majority", ... could also be interpreted to mean that they are hoping to *at least win the most seats of any competing party even if this meant winning less than half* and that they would be required to seek a coalition partner or to rule as a minority government. The latter interpretation being more likely in a situation where you have, for example, all the polls and pundits predicting that they've got no chance of winning outright (ie. more than half the seats) but are still in the race for a lesser win.




Apologies for all the toing and froing. Again, I emphasise I only brought it up as a possible and perhaps acceptable single-word term, in response to the OP.
I'm not advocating that it should be used instead/ahead of the other terms, of course. The point is, however, the term is being used widely - the abundance of google results clearly attest to that.

In the political context.

What you've described is a minority government, whereas the term is "majority" (which in all likelihood is short for/ synonymous with any or all of "governing majority", "absolute majority", etc., - take your pick). 

We are not talking about a party merely winning the election, by gaining more seats relative to individual rival parties - that's not a big deal. The article would just read, "Syriza or party X hopes to win the election". Ho hum. In Syriza's case, that would have been aiming very low given the pre-election polls (I'm referring to Syriza as it's topical).
So the question with Syriza was, will it win the necessary number of seats that will allow it to govern in its own right, will it reach "majority"? Majority here is a status, a governing majority, a majority government. That's the crux of it.

That's what achieving/winning a majority means for political parties in elections, it's about reaching a majority government, this status, and that's how it's being used in newspapers etc. That's what it's all about, the ultimate prize is having outright control, not just winning the election.

So, the article writers have this array to choose from: _single-party/full/ absolute/governing/etc._*majority *, but they'll often just choose the single term "*majority*" instead, which they obviously view as being synonymous with the above terms. They must expect their readers to readily understand it this way, too?
Maybe we need to check that this is indeed what they want to convey with the single term, now and again. But for the most part, I'm satisfied that it is.


----------



## cougr (Jan 30, 2015)

Pontios, this is what I'm talking about:

His radical left-wing party, Syriza, *won a majority* in Sunday's general election, and he is threatening to renege on at least half of the 240 billion...(.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Che-Guevara-is-planning-Europes-downfall.html)

The euro dropped briefly to an 11 year low against the dollar as the radical left-wing party Syriza *won a majority* in Greece's national elections. (http://www.treasuryinsider.com/2015...t-as-anti-austerity-party-triumphs-in-greece/)

*Syriza win a majority *but cannot form a government: This would likely trigger another election. Although initially the
market may not like the political uncertainty in Greece, it could give centre-right New Democracy a chance to win a second
round election, like it did in 2012.  (http://www.forex.com/au/pdf/greek-election-report.pdf)

Hence the importance of a qualifier or other clarifying information where you want the term to unequivocally denote "αυτοδυναμία".

I could have provided hundreds of similar examples and not just pertaining to Syriza, but I think you get the drift.


----------



## pontios (Jan 30, 2015)

Syriza almost reached a majority, fell 2 seats shy of it - I guess for all intents and purposes it did - it only needs a deal with 2 independents.
So either the article writer you're referring to does not have a complete grasp of the term (which I doubt), or, more likely, he's/she's prone to exaggerating for effect - not unusual for journalists.

I can pull up many more instances where "majority" (achieving it, winning it or just missing out on it) is used correctly.

Here's one of many used correctly. 

Greece’s Syriza looks to form coalition after falling *just shy of majority*
http://news.lokalee.com/greeces-syriza-looks-to-form-coalition-after-falling-just-shy-of-majority/

An absolute majority, a full majority, a single-party majority, an overall majority is still a majority at the end of the day.
It refers to the same status. 

I'm not trying to convince you, cougr - but I do see it as a legitimate single-term equivalent in the context of "win a majority/ achieve a majority etc.." where it's abundantly clear that it's referring to a "governing majority".

Some journalists may have figured out that the qualifiers are superfluous. 
You can be fully pregnant, absolutely pregnant but at the end of the day you're still pregnant, as a crude analogy.


----------



## nickel (Jan 30, 2015)

pontios said:


> I can pull up many more instances where "majority" (achieving it, winning it or just missing out on it) is used correctly.



Ο λόγος λοιπόν που είναι καλό να αποσαφηνίζεται η σημασία της λέξης με κάποιο επίθετο είναι γιατί δεν ξέρουμε αν αυτός που τη χρησιμοποιεί τη χρησιμοποιεί σωστά ή αν αυτός που τη διαβάζει τη διαβάζει σωστά. Είναι κάτι σαν τη λέξη *ευάριθμος*.


----------



## pontios (Jan 30, 2015)

nickel said:


> Ο λόγος λοιπόν που είναι καλό να αποσαφηνίζεται η σημασία της λέξης με κάποιο επίθετο είναι γιατί δεν ξέρουμε αν αυτός που τη χρησιμοποιεί τη χρησιμοποιεί σωστά ή αν αυτός που τη διαβάζει τη διαβάζει σωστά. Είναι κάτι σαν τη λέξη *ευάριθμος*.



But the point is, it is being used as a single-term equivalent to "αυτοδυναμία" (politically speaking) - we need to accept that. It is a fait accompli.

In the right context - it might be superfluous to choose absolute majority or take-your-pick majority over the simpler and more to the point "majority". 
That would explain its abundant usage.

It's not about what I or you would choose, nickel and cougr - although, I don't have any problem with the single-word term (when it's abundantly clear that it's referring to a "governing majority"). ;)

By the way, "governing majority" should be on the title, IMHO - it's the status/condition that all these synonymous terms are alluding to.


----------



## nickel (Jan 30, 2015)

Incidentally, the paragraph about _majority_ and _plurality_ in Webster's Synonyms is a good read.
https://books.google.gr/books?id=8N4UReTJYhUC&pg=516#v=onepage&q&f=false

(Press the + lens button to increase the size.)


----------



## pontios (Jan 30, 2015)

nickel said:


> Incidentally, the paragraph about _majority_ and _plurality_ in Webster's Synonyms is a good read.
> https://books.google.gr/books?id=8N4UReTJYhUC&pg=516#v=onepage&q&f=false
> 
> (Press the + lens button to increase the size.)



Interesting terms, nickel, and no qualifiers to quibble over. ;)

Thanks for the discussion, cougr. Always enjoy our little stoushes. We both play hard, but it's always in the right spirit and for the right reason.


----------



## cougr (Jan 30, 2015)

pontios said:


> By the way, "governing majority" should be on the title, IMHO - it's the status/condition that all these synonymous terms are alluding to.



Not quite! "Governing majority" is used for both coalition and single-party governments.

And to wrap things up on my end, just a couple more points. I suppose we can quibble about what constitutes correct usage of a word, no end, but in the examples I provided above (#15), the whole point was that the term "majority" was being used in a sense that the populace generally uses it in and has so for long as I remember.

In British English, majority and plurality are often used as synonyms......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority

Finally, the thrust of my argument wasn't that your main point was erroneous in any absolute sense but rather that because the term is used with equivocal meanings, it often leads to ambiguity.



pontios said:


> Thanks for the discussion, cougr. Always enjoy our little stoushes. We both play hard, but it's always in the right spirit and for the right reason



Likewise. Never any hard feelings on my part.


----------



## pontios (Jan 30, 2015)

I was talking about single parties, not coalitions, and probably got ahead of myself. So, you're right.

So, single-party governing majority - instead of single-party majority, perhaps?
(I don't know why, but I keep coming back to Syriza).

It's always based on context, cougr.
Let's take the sentence:
Syriza aims to win a "majority" on the eve of the election.
Where is the confusion here with the single term being used?
What further insight/clarity would I get if the term "absolute majority" was used instead?

All terms can lead to ambiguity.
We need to be familiar with the political landscape and what constitutes "majority" in all cases anyway, even with the qualified terms, such as "absolute majority" - if we don't understand what "majority" the condition/status/concept itself means, then it would be impossible to make sense of the term "absolute majority".

In the right context, where things are abundantly clear (and there is no equivocal meaning), I have no problem with the single term being used - which is the basis of all the other terms anyway.

All I know is, it's widely used, and, I assume, widely understood.


----------



## cougr (May 25, 2022)

Παραλείψαμε να αναφέρουμε ότι ο όρος «αυτοδυναμία» θα μπορούσε επίσης να αποδοθεί με τη φράση «in its/their own right».

_A Labor-Greens government has been dismissed by the opposition, with Labor confident it can form a majority government in its own right.

While his prime ministership is almost certain, less clear is whether Labor will be able to govern in its own right, or whether it will need the help of an expanded crossbench.

Polls suggest it will be difficult for Labor or the Liberal-Nationals coalition to form a government in their own right_


----------



## pontios (May 25, 2022)

We mentioned "in its own right" earlier in the discussion ( I mentioned it in my post #14), but, IMHO «in its/their own right» = by itself (it's an adverbial phrase), i.e., it indicates how the status of absolute majority has been reached ("by" a single-party majority, etc..) but it does not refer to the status itself - and that's why I didn't suggest it.


----------



## cougr (May 25, 2022)

pontios said:


> «in its/their own right» = by itself (it's an adverbial phrase), i.e., it indicates how the status of absolute majority has been reached ("by" a single-party majority, etc..)


That would be so in a sentence such as "won in their own right" or "voted in with a majority in their own right" but to "govern in their own right" mainly implies they have a mandate to govern on their own without being required to form an alliance with independent or minor party members.

Phrases such as "_form a government in its own right" _and "_govern in its own right" _could adequately be translated respectively as "σχηματίσει κυβέρνηση αυτοδυναμίας" and "κυβερνήσει με αυτοδυναμία/αυτοδύναμα"


----------



## pontios (May 25, 2022)

Από τεχνική άποψη, αν αλλάξουμε τον όρο προς μετάφραση άπο "αυτονομία" (as it appears on the title) σε "με αυτονομία" (i.e., from "absolute majority" to "by absolute majority,etc ... because that's what we'd effectively be doing with "in its own right") ... τότε, ναι.

Again, we'd be describing and translating the "how" ... i.e. how the status is reached (*"in its own right" ="by"* (reaching) *absolute/single-party majority *etc... vs the actual status of single party majority, etc. which is what "αυτοδυναμία"represents).
​


----------



## pontios (May 25, 2022)

To put it more simply ... you can say Syriza governed "in its own right" ... but you can't say Syriza governed "absolute majority" .... you need a "by" in there.
They are not one and the same things!!

One is the status itself .... "absolute majority" ..... and the other is how you get there (how you reach (or you've reached) this status * "by* *"* absolute majority, in its own right."!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Θα τρελαθώ, νομίζω.

It's like saying "absolute" and "absolutely" are the same thing and function the same way.

It has to agree syntactically, etc... with the title ... the term that's being translated!!!


----------

