George Christensen voted consistently against considering legislation to create a federal anti-corruption commission (procedural)
How George Christensen voted compared to someone who agrees that the parliament should immediately introduce and debate legislation to create a federal anti-corruption commission, or national integrity commission, that would detect, investigate and prevent corruption at a federal level (NB: this policy is related to our other policy, called "For creating a federal Anti-Corruption Commission")
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for considering legislation to create a federal anti-corruption commission (procedural)” which George Christensen could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of George Christensen on this policy.
| Division | George Christensen | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for considering legislation to create a federal anti-corruption commission (procedural)” which George Christensen could have attended.
| Division | George Christensen | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
25th Nov 2021, 11:37 AM – Representatives Business - Rearrangement - Let a vote on the integrity commission take place |
No | Yes |
20th Oct 2021, 5:36 PM – Representatives Motions - Commonwealth Integrity Commission - Don't let a vote happen |
absent | No |
11th Jun 2020, 9:46 AM – Representatives Business - Consideration of Legislation - Don't let a vote happen |
Yes | No |
10th Sep 2019, 6:16 PM – Representatives National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2) - First Reading - Consider second reading tomorrow |
Yes | No |
How "voted consistently against" is worked out
They Vote For You gives each vote a score based on whether the MP voted in agreement with the policy or not. These scores are then averaged with a weighting across all votes that the MP could have voted on relevant to the policy. The overall average score is then converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.
When an MP votes in agreement with a policy the vote is scored as 100%. When they vote against the policy it is scored as 0% and when they are absent it is scored half way between the two at 50%. The half way point effectively says "we don't know whether they are for or against this policy".
The overall agreement score for the policy is worked out by a weighted average of the scores for each vote. The weighting has been chosen so that the most important votes have a weighting 5 times that of the less important votes. Also, absent votes on less important votes are weighted 5 times less again to not penalise MPs for not attending the less important votes. Pressure of other work means MPs or Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always mean they've abstained.
| Type of vote | Agreement score (s) | Weight (w) | No of votes (n) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Most important votes | MP voted with policy | 100% | 25 | 0 |
| MP voted against policy | 0% | 25 | 0 | |
| MP absent | 50% | 25 | 0 | |
| Less important votes | MP voted with policy | 100% | 5 | 0 |
| MP voted against policy | 0% | 5 | 3 | |
| MP absent | 50% | 1 | 1 | |
The final agreement score is a weighted average (weighted arithmetic mean) of the scores of the individual votes.
Average agreement score = sum(n×w×s) / sum(n×w) = 0.5 / 16 = 3%.
And then this average agreement score
- between 95% and 100% becomes "voted consistently for"
- between 85% and 95% becomes "voted almost always for"
- between 60% and 85% becomes "voted generally for"
- between 40% and 60% becomes "voted a mixture of for and against"
- between 15% and 40% becomes "voted generally against"
- between 5% and 15% becomes "voted almost always against"
- between 0% and 5% becomes "voted consistently against"