Joel Fitzgibbon voted consistently for increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management
How Joel Fitzgibbon voted compared to someone who agrees that there should be more independent access to detention centres and more information provided about the management of asylum seekers under Australian government policy, including the interception of boats at sea
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management” which Joel Fitzgibbon could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Joel Fitzgibbon on this policy.
| Division | Joel Fitzgibbon | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
4th Dec 2014 – Representatives Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 - Consideration of Senate Message - Agree with Senate's amendments |
No | No |
22nd Oct 2014, 5:12 PM – Representatives Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
No | No |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management” which Joel Fitzgibbon could have attended.
| Division | Joel Fitzgibbon | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
12th Feb 2019, 6:11 PM – Representatives Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 - Consideration of Senate Message - Agree with the amendments |
Yes | Yes |
How "voted consistently for" 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 | 2 |
| MP voted against policy | 0% | 25 | 0 | |
| MP absent | 50% | 25 | 0 | |
| Less important votes | MP voted with policy | 100% | 5 | 1 |
| MP voted against policy | 0% | 5 | 0 | |
| MP absent | 50% | 1 | 0 | |
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) = 55.0 / 55 = 100%.
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"