How Doug Cameron voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce mandatory drug testing for people who receive certain welfare payments
|Division||Doug Cameron||Supporters vote|
7th Dec 2017, 5:59 PM – Senate Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea
14th Jun 2017, 4:09 PM – Senate Motions - Budget - Abandon drug testing income support
How "generally 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||0||0||0|
|MP voted against policy||1||0||50|
|Less important votes (10 points)|
|MP voted with policy||1||10||10|
|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 = 10 / 60 = 17%.
- 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"