Cambridge does not have the best definition, imo, but even going by that the first definition would mean any plurality would qualify as "most" - setting the threshold potentially lower than 50%.

I prefer Merriam Webster, which is far more clear. Definition 2 (defn 1 does not apply in this context): https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most

▲

bbarnett 4 days ago | parent [-]

We have multiple parties in Canada.

There may be a minority government elected, with 40% of the seats, and 30%, 20%, 10% to other parties.

The 40% party will be described as winning the most seats.

	▲	harmmonica 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Ha, I gotta say after reading your reply I feel kind of dumb for even saying the 80%; I had blinders on. Most, when it's relative, is the highest of a set even if that number is super low. Totally spaced on that when I asked, but I was fixated on how it's used to define something that's a percentage like in the 65% example. It happens so frequently in journalism and it's frustrating because it's trying to make an argument that sometimes the numbers themselves don't support. Anyway, appreciate you reminding me (and I deserved to feel dumb so also making me feel a bit dumb about it).
	▲	CGMthrowaway 4 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Yes, that is definition 1 (merriam-webster). This definition is often invoked by saying "the" before "most," as you did. It's a different definition than defn 2 (m-w), which is what is used when saying "Most farms are not owned by farmers." "The 40% party won the most seats" carries a different meaning than "The 40% party won most seats"
	▲	Dylan16807 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's more complicated. They got "the most" seats but they didn't get "most" seats. Pure "most" is implicitly that option versus all the rest.