How Steve Irons voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase the amount that patients pay for medicine under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (known as the 'co-payment')

Division Steve Irons Supporters vote

16th Jul 2014, 6:36 PM – Representatives National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2014 — Third Reading — Read a third time

Yes Yes (strong)

16th Jul 2014, 6:05 PM – Representatives National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2014 — Consideration in Detail — Agree to the bill

Yes Yes (strong)

16th Jul 2014, 4:30 PM – Representatives National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2014 — Second Reading — Read a second time

Yes Yes (strong)

How "consistently for" 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 3 150 150
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 150 150

*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 = 150 / 150 = 100%.

And then