We can't say anything concrete about how Bill Shorten voted on Senate electoral reform
How Bill Shorten voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should change the laws governing Senate elections to allow voters more direct control over the flow of preferences, whether they vote above or below the line
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for Senate electoral reform” which Bill Shorten could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Bill Shorten on this policy.
| Division | Bill Shorten | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
17th Mar 2016, 3:27 PM – Representatives Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - Consideration of Senate Message - Agree with Senate amendments |
absent | Yes |
24th Feb 2016, 4:49 PM – Representatives Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - Second Reading - Agree with the main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for Senate electoral reform” which Bill Shorten could have attended.
| Division | Bill Shorten | 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 Bill Shorten was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.