Sharon Grierson voted almost always against suspending the rules to allow a vote to happen (procedural)
How Sharon Grierson voted compared to someone who believes that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Senators should vote to suspend standing and sessional orders (that is, the procedural rules of Parliament) so that their colleagues can introduce motions for Parliament to vote on even when the the procedural rules would prevent them from doing so
How "almost always against" is worked out
The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the MP was absent get 2 points. In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy, 0 points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy, 0 points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent.
Then, the number gets converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.
|No of votes||Points||Out of|
|Most important votes (50 points)|
|MP voted with policy||1||50||50|
|MP voted against policy||22||0||1100|
|Less important votes (10 points)|
|MP voted with policy||0||0||0|
|MP voted against policy||0||0||0|
|Less important absentees (2 points)|
*Pressure of other work means MPs or Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.
Agreement score = MP's points / total points = 75 / 1200 = 6.3%.
- between 95% and 100% becomes "consistently for"
- between 85% and 95% becomes "almost always for"
- between 60% and 85% becomes "generally for"
- between 40% and 60% becomes "a mixture of for and against"
- between 15% and 40% becomes "generally against"
- between 5.0% and 15% becomes "almost always against"
- between 0.0% and 5.0% becomes "consistently against"