Scott Ludlam voted consistently against revoking citizenship of dual nationals involved with terrorism offences by the minister
How Scott Ludlam voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should give the immigration minister the power to revoke the citizenship of people who have dual nationality (that is, are also citizens of another country) if they take part in certain terrorism-related offences [NOTE: following a High Court decision that ruled that the Minister did not have the power to revoke citizenship in this manner, there is now a new policy titled "Revoking citizenship of dual nationals involved with terrorism offences by the courts", which involves giving the citizenship-revoking power to the courts rather than the Minister themself]
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for revoking citizenship of dual nationals involved with terrorism offences by the minister” which Scott Ludlam could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Scott Ludlam on this policy.
| Division | Scott Ludlam | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
1st Dec 2015, 9:01 PM – Senate Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
No | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for revoking citizenship of dual nationals involved with terrorism offences by the minister” which Scott Ludlam could have attended.
| Division | Scott Ludlam | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
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 | 1 | |
| 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 | 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 / 25 = 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"