We can't say anything concrete about how Lin Thorp voted on suspending the rules to allow a vote to happen (procedural)
How Lin Thorp voted compared to someone who agrees 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
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for suspending the rules to allow a vote to happen (procedural)” which Lin Thorp could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Lin Thorp on this policy.
| Division | Lin Thorp | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
28th Feb 2013, 3:36 PM – Senate Motions - Suspension of Standing Orders - Let a vote happen |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for suspending the rules to allow a vote to happen (procedural)” which Lin Thorp could have attended.
| Division | Lin Thorp | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Lin Thorp was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.