Jordon Steele-John voted consistently against making more water from Murray-Darling Basin available to use
How Jordon Steele-John voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase water allocations from the Murray-Darling Basin for farmers and other users
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for making more water from Murray-Darling Basin available to use” which Jordon Steele-John could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Jordon Steele-John on this policy.
| Division | Jordon Steele-John | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for making more water from Murray-Darling Basin available to use” which Jordon Steele-John could have attended.
| Division | Jordon Steele-John | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
25th Feb 2020, 4:15 PM – Senate Motions - Murray-Darling Basin - Protect water |
Yes | No |
11th Sep 2019, 4:01 PM – Senate Motions - Murray-Darling Basin - Moratorium |
Yes | No |
11th Sep 2019, 3:58 PM – Senate Motions - Murray-Darling Basin - Crisis |
Yes | No |
3rd Apr 2019, 1:03 PM – Senate Motions - Murray-Darling Basin - Repeal 1,500 GL limit |
Yes | No |
14th Feb 2019 – Senate Motions - Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission - Reform needed |
Yes | No |
25th Jun 2018, 9:17 PM – Senate Water Amendment Bill 2018 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
No | Yes |
25th Jun 2018, 8:36 PM – Senate Water Amendment Bill 2018 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
No | Yes |
14th Feb 2018, 7:14 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1) - Disallow |
Yes | No |
How "voted consistently against" 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 | 0 |
| 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 | 8 | |
| MP absent | 50% | 1 | 0 | |
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) = 0.0 / 40 = 0%.
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"