Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Orleander, Aug 16, 2008.
How do you say the percentage of votes needed for very big decisions? is it 66%?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
As at 2006, non-hispanic white americans constitute 66% of the population, thus constitute a majority.
What the article is saying is that by 2042, although they will represent a plurality, they will no longer constitute a majority.
I suppose when considering whethe ror not a group constitutes a majority, you must perforce divide the population into two groups. Those inside the group being considered, and those outside the froup being considered.
Note that in at least one of the definitions it seems to allude to the confusion between majority and plurality (I almost typed plurasy >_>).
Ironically, it occurs to me that although "White Americans" will not constitute a Majority.
"Non-Blacks" "Non-Hispanics" etc etc will still constitue a majority.
It's just a matter of how you cut the numbers/
often they say a two thirds majority.
The poster is right. I looked it up in Wiki, it is a mathematical concept/rule:
"A majority, also known as a simple majority in the U.S., is a subset of a group that is more than half of the entire group. This should not be confused with a plurality, which is a subset having the largest number of parts. A plurality is not necessarily a majority, as the largest subset may be less than half of the entire group."
Edit: Apparently others also already quoted this...
Well, a simply dictionary lookup also could have answered the question:
3 a: a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total
So the news is correct, right now whites are the majority, and then non-whites will be the majority...(so whites will not be the majority)
My dictionary says "majority = greater number", which seems to be confused with plurality.
Then what? The Beige people are the majority? I'm not white, in fact...holding up some bleached paper next to my skin, I look fucking dark. We are all so many shades of brown.
Perhaps by 2042, we can come up with better terminology for people's skin tone than incorrect ones like "White" or "Black".
(Wow, is he really that stupid? Nietzsche really thinks we are talking about skin tone and not "Race")
No I'm not. Maybe in 2042, we can actually say what we really mean and call people by their proper cultural backgrounds. Actually, hopefully by then we can simply be called "American", "Canadian". Or even better, anything that cannot be fucking plugged into a statistic. By that time, I would even prefer the more ignorant Niggers, Honkys, Chinks, Spics, Nips etc, to the absolute color system we currently use. It's stupid and it personally bothers me that I have to resort to it to convey what someone looks like.
Of course it does. Haven't you seen how American elections work? If no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote--a majority--they have to have a runoff between the top two. It's the same way in many other countries, if not most.
It's really scaremongering, since, with a single exception which I'll get to in a minute, all immigrant groups (so far anyway) assimilate rapidly and become "white" within three generations if not sooner. Mexicans have been in the USA since before it was the USA, yet you can hardly find anyone who identifies himself as a "third-generation Mexican-American." They've all intermarried and joined the Melting Pot. Only celebrities like Linda Ronstadt and Bill Richardson trumpet their "Mexican heritage" when it gets them an advantage. I speak Spanish better than Linda Ronstadt!
The intermarriage rate among Mexican immigrants is 30% in the first generation and more than 50% in the second generation. Even the "traditionally conservative" East Asian immigrants intermarry at a rate higher than 20% in the first generation, and it's almost as hard to find a third-generation Chinese-, Japanese-, Korean- or Vietnamese-American.
Their kids all eat pizza, play baseball and listen to rap music. The leading Mexican music radio station in Los Angeles had to convert to English-speaking DJs because it's no longer fashionable for the children of Latino immigrants to know Spanish at all. The last time I was in L.A. I dropped in at a shopping mall in a neighborhood that is regarded as "minority." I did indeed encounter a lot of kids of various ethnicities there--and they were all hanging out together, with the occasional white kid! A Mexican kid might not happen to marry an Anglo, but he could just as easily marry a girl from Thailand.
There is no threat of America becoming "not white" because the immigrants' descendants all "become white." You kids are too young to remember when Italians were not considered "white" and when entire neighborhoods had covenants to keep out Jewish residents.
To get back to that one ethnic group that's not Melting into the Pot, it's African-Americans. Their intermarriage rate with the rest of us is an astoundingly low 3%, even though until very recently most of their families had been in this country for five or six generations--far longer than my own thoroughly mongrelized family. 140 years after Emancipation, this country still has separate "white" and "black" communities, with their own neighborhoods, music, cuisine, slang, and social customs.
As I've opined before, I believe this is the legacy of the Civil War. Every other country in the Western Hemisphere (except Haiti) freed their slaves peacefully and today their people all come in various shades of brown (except the Haitians).
Hardly likely. Some groups like the Cubans are more conservative than the Rednecks, and others are more liberal than the people in San Francisco. There's no such thing as a "minority bloc" in America.
Unfortunately there are still people who feel that way. But take heart. There was a time when it was assumed that to be an American your ancestors had to come from a handful of northwestern European countries. The Irish, Italians, Greeks, Poles, etc., were treated like shit. My mother's family was from Bohemia (we call it the Czech Republic now because it's easier to spell) and they lived in a ghetto struggling to make ends meet. She never heard a word of English until she entered the first grade.
Nowadays anybody who is "Caucasian" is accepted, at least grudgingly. Or at least they were until the Iranian Hostage Crisis and 9/11 soured many Americans on Muslim Mideasterners. Back in the 1970s when immigration from the Far East began to increase immensely, I heard a Redneck in Los Angeles say, "Ya know, I guess it's time ta start callin' them Messicans 'honorary white folks'."
Greater than 50% is a majority. Having the most, but less than 50%, is a plurality. Whites will be, if the prediction is correct, a plurality by 2050.
Of course, the way we've dealt with that in the past is to redefine "white". At one time, Italians, Irish, Jews, etc weren't considered "white". In the future, most Hispanics will probably be counted as "white".
PS: Looks like Fraggle beat me to the redefining white bit. And did a much better job, too.
I think Mexicans are still have a way to go before they would be considered white, especially since Americans tend to be so hostile towards the race. at least they are here where I live
Hispanic: of spain origin. Spain a european nation. Europe-white people. Some mexican and/or south american peoples are of no hispanic blood. They are native american.
I've never heard that word in any class I have EVER taken. Ask your kids.
You would most likely have encountered it in government, since that's where it's used the most. It is an important concept. The fact that our constitution requires a majority (not a plurality) vote in the electoral college is a big part of the reason we have a two party system. If you split the pie more than 2 ways, it's damned hard for anyone to get more than half the votes!
I CLEP'd out of a lot of my classes before I started college. Maybe that's why I never heard it.
M*W: The way I understand a majority (not that I am a mathematician or anything), is hypothetically (my figures are for example, only):
Therefore, whites would be the majority, and they don't have to comprise over 50%. That just wouldn't logically calculate.
Don't you people have access to dictionaries where you live? The essence of every definition of "majority" is "A number greater than half the total; the larger of two parts."
You probably won't encounter the word "plurality" in a math class. I never did, and I've never encountered a situation in which it would be needed in math. It's something you'll get in classes on politics, current events, etc., since it figures in the political systems of many countries. (It's not quite as important in a discussion of our two-party system, although as I said it often comes up in primary elections.) You'll also find it in the dictionary when you look up "majority," because down in the more expansive part of the definition they contrast "majority" with "plurality."
Look at the party nominating conventions that are coming up and you can see the principle in action. In order to secure the nomination, one candidate must get a majority of the delegates' votes. That means more than all the other candidates combined, not just more than any of them separately.
You're wrong, Orly. A "majority" always means more 50% plus one (in math). Always.
The "largest plurality" means the largest of all groups, but not necessarily the majority.
well I know I'm wrong NOW. I was taught wrong. I was taught majority always meant more. We took votes in class with a raising of hands. Hands were counted and majority ruled. It was never plurality ruled.
I guess you're discovering very late in life that some of your teachers were idiots. I'm not sure it was such a great advantage to figure it out in the 7th grade. My teachers hated me, my parents were too stupid to figure out who was right so they always sided with the teacher and thought I was a troublemaker, and I grew up being a textbook example of the "generation gap" even though I was born three years too early to be a Baby Boomer. When I found out that people of my parents' generation had built concentration camps and dropped nuclear bombs on civilian targets I just assumed that everyone of that age was an evil moron.
Separate names with a comma.