Compare how Bruce Scott and Jim Chalmers voted on Senate electoral reform

Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for Senate electoral reform” which either Bruce Scott or Jim Chalmers could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Bruce Scott and Jim Chalmers on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".

Division	Bruce Scott	Jim Chalmers	Supporters vote
17th Mar 2016, 3:27 PM – Representatives Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - Consideration of Senate Message - Agree with Senate amendments	absent	absent	Yes
24th Feb 2016, 4:49 PM – Representatives Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - Second Reading - Agree with the main idea	Yes	No	Yes

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for Senate electoral reform” which either Bruce Scott or Jim Chalmers could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".

Division	Bruce Scott	Jim Chalmers	Supporters vote
no votes listed