How Trish Crossin voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce a carbon pricing mechanism

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for a carbon price” which Trish Crossin could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Trish Crossin on this policy.

Division Trish Crossin Supporters vote

8th Nov 2011 – Senate Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills - Third Reading - Read a third time

Yes Yes

7th Nov 2011 – Senate Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills - In Committee - Defer commencement of the carbon price

No No

3rd Nov 2011 – Senate Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills - Second Reading - Read a second time

Yes Yes

12th Oct 2011 – Senate Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills - First Reading - Read for a first time

Yes Yes

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for a carbon price” which Trish Crossin could have attended.

Division Trish Crossin Supporters vote

27th Jun 2013, 12:18 PM – Senate Motions - Carbon Pricing - Stop the increase in the carbon price

No No

26th Nov 2012, 10:01 PM – Senate Clean Energy Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 and related bills - Third Reading - Read a third time

Yes Yes

26th Nov 2012, 9:42 PM – Senate Clean Energy Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 and related bills - Second Reading - Read a second time

Yes Yes

25th Jun 2012, 8:47 PM – Senate Clean Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2012, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2012 - Third Reading - Read a third time

Yes Yes

25th Jun 2012, 8:44 PM – Senate Clean Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2012, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Read a second time

Yes Yes

21st Jun 2012, 6:02 PM – Senate Motions — Carbon Pricing - Condemn Government

absent No

8th Nov 2011 – Senate Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills - In committee - Agree to the bills

Yes Yes

8th Nov 2011 – Senate Clean Energy Bill 2011 - In Committee - When charge payable

No No

12th Oct 2011 – Senate Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills - First Reading - Take the bills together

Yes Yes

12th Oct 2011 – Senate Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills - First Reading - Proceed without formalities

Yes Yes

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 4
MP voted against policy 0% 25 0
MP absent 50% 25 0
Less important votes MP voted with policy 100% 5 9
MP voted against policy 0% 5 0
MP absent 50% 1 1

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) = 145.5 / 146 = 99.7%.

And then this average agreement score