Jim Molan voted consistently for reducing taxes for high-income earners
How Jim Molan voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should reduce the amount of income tax that high-income earners (those who earn over $200,000 per year) must pay each year
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for reducing taxes for high-income earners” which Jim Molan could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Jim Molan on this policy.
| Division | Jim Molan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
21st Jun 2018, 11:55 AM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - Adoption of Report - Don't insist on amendments |
Yes | Yes |
21st Jun 2018, 11:41 AM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - Consideration of House of Representatives Message - Don't insist on amendments |
Yes | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for reducing taxes for high-income earners” which Jim Molan could have attended.
| Division | Jim Molan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
26th Oct 2022, 10:46 AM – Senate Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 and another - Second Reading - Repeal stage 3 tax cuts |
absent | No |
7th Sep 2022, 5:34 PM – Senate Matters of Urgency - Taxation - Stage 3 tax cuts |
absent | 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 | 0 |
| MP voted against policy | 0% | 5 | 0 | |
| MP absent | 50% | 1 | 2 | |
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) = 51.0 / 52 = 98%.
And then this average agreement score
- between 95% and 100% becomes "voted consistently for"
- between 85% and 95% becomes "voted almost always for"
- between 60% and 85% becomes "voted generally for"
- between 40% and 60% becomes "voted a mixture of for and against"
- between 15% and 40% becomes "voted generally against"
- between 5% and 15% becomes "voted almost always against"
- between 0% and 5% becomes "voted consistently against"