How Sharon Claydon voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should implement the international conventions that relate to seeking refuge and protection from torture. These include the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and the non-refoulement provisions of the UN Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for implementing refugee and protection conventions” which Sharon Claydon could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Sharon Claydon on this policy.

Division Sharon Claydon 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 implementing refugee and protection conventions” which Sharon Claydon could have attended.

Division Sharon Claydon Supporters vote

10th Nov 2016, 12:59 PM – Representatives Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

No No

10th Nov 2016, 12:53 PM – Representatives Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea

No No

22nd Sep 2014, 8:45 PM – Representatives Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2014 - Consideration in Detail - Agree to the bill

No No

22nd Sep 2014, 8:37 PM – Representatives Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2014 - Consideration in Detail - Complementary protection

Yes Yes

22nd Sep 2014, 8:14 PM – Representatives Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Read a second time

No No

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 5
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) = 75.0 / 75 = 100%.

And then this average agreement score