The article has taken the word "majority" and redefined it to be something counterintuitive, and only partly related to the standard use of the word majority.

The article has taken the word "majority" and redefined it to be something counterintuitive, and only partly related to the standard use of the word majority. A under "normal" usage, the words majority / minority have this property: > The intersection of two minorities is a minority, and the union of two majorities is a majority As the GP points out in his reply to my original comment, you can get this property from >If a vote is held and the Ayes have it, and then any number of voters switch from Nay to Aye, the Ayes still have it Now the author is redefining the terms minority and majority so they have this property: > The union of two minorities is a minority, and the intersection of two majorities is a majority But that's not possible unless you have infinite votes. As GP points out, it's clearest when you take "minority" to mean finite, and "majority" to mean "infinite, with finite opposition".