Just to say that I don't have a problem with the English here. I understood this translation as the equivalent of "there is a majority and that majority is three million strong". In other words, there's been an election/vote etc and the winning side have three million more votes than the losing side. I'm a native speaker of English from Britain.
That precise meaning would never have occurred to me, and I actually worked for British university once as a mathematician. For me the sentence barely makes sense, but to the extent that it does I agree with AlexNotInTurkey's earlier interpretation, which is totally different from yours.
I'm no good at maths myself (I wish I were), being a language teacher and translator, but in the political context, which is how I interpreted it, the meaning of the English version would be as I said above. (In fact, that is how I understood AlexNotInTurkey's interpretation too.) For example, if there's an election with 8 million voters, and 3 million vote for Party X and 5 million vote for Party Y, then Party Y have a 2 million majority/there's a 2 million majority/a majority of 2 million etc. The majority in this context is the difference between the two numbers, not the total. In Parliament, the current British Government has a majority of 12, or a 12-seat majority, because the governing party has 12 more MPs than all the other MPs put together. Of course there's also the simple majority, which is 50%+1, but the majority as expressed in politics in terms of numbers of voters or seats is as I've described. Having said that, I absolutely recognise that this may not be what the Turkish phrase means, as my Turkish is not good enough (in fact, nowhere good enough) for me to tell. I'm only explaining how I interpreted the English translation, and why.
In your example, I can actually agree with saying there is a 2 million majority, but I cannot agree with saying the majority is 2 million. Because the 2 million majority in your example is actually 5 million. (And the minority is 3 million.) Obviously there are some very subtle nuances at play here.
I think the reason for the confusion is the two different interpretations of majority - the mathematical and the political. For example, if there are 650 MPs in the House of Commons, and 350 of them belong to Party X, and 300 belong to Party Y, then we'd say that Party X has a majority of 50. We wouldn't say that the majority is 350 and the minority is 300.
Again, in this situation I have no problem with "a majority of 50" or a "50 seat majority". But in this situation the abstract majority is 326 MPs and if it makes any sense at all to say that the concrete majority is a number, then IMO it would have to be "the majority is 350".
In most situations these different ways of saying it are essentially equivalent and can just be transformed into each other. Whether you call a group "a group of 50", "a 50-strong group" or say "the group is 50 people" - it always amounts to the same hard information. But with "majority" rather than "group" it's not at all the same thing. In "a majority of N seats" the thinking about margins is dominant; in "the majority is N seats" the thinking about absolute sizes is dominant.
Of course not everyone will get this right all the time, so talking about majorities in one of these ways is inherently ambiguous and one must also check with the context which reading actually makes sense. But this requires background information such as the total number of seats in a parliament.
Dear Johaquila, I've run out of indentations, so I'll reply here. There is a fundamental difference between the use of the word "majority" in maths, and in politics. If you look here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/majority you will, I hope, see that the political use is as I've described. Seriously. I understand your mathematical stance, and I agree about the use of majority in maths. But words can mean different things in different contexts. Here, as I've said, as a native speaker of English, I have no problem with the original sentence. I hope you are happy with the definition as given in the dictionary above. If not, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
i am in lesson 15 in lesson (part)4 and for every audio that contain a number it is marked as wrong pronunciation just the number not the whole sentence so i can't be just mispronouncing every single number through all of these lessons and not getting any right !! to be honest i did get some lucky 2s and zeros and an occasional milyon... so does anyone have an idea about what is going on!! and if you can help me with that
In English, you only say "three millions" (using the plural) in the extremely rare case that you are thinking of three separate, individual millions rather than the (approximate or precise) number 3,000,000. In numbers, million just like thousand and hundred is always used in the singular. For example, 3,200,100 is pronounced "three million two hundred thousand [and] one hundred". No plurals at all.