Comparison of Divisions: Electoral Integrity — 22 Jun 2005 at 18:50 with Division No. 19 on the same day at 18:59
(Swap the two divisions around).
Vote (a) : Electoral Integrity - 22 Jun 2005 at 18:50 - Division No. 18
This division took place at the end of a Conservative opposition day debate on the electoral system, concentrating on postal voting and electoral registration. The motion which the Conservatives proposed was:
That this House believes that the Government should rule out future use of all-postal voting and that any pilot schemes should be subject to explicit parliamentary ratification; regrets the unwillingness of the Government to adopt in mainland Britain the tried and tested Northern Ireland system of individual voter registration; condemns the Government's constitutional changes which have undermined democratic accountability, such as the introduction of proportional representation; and further believes that urgent steps are needed to restore public confidence and integrity in the electoral system and to increase the accountability of government.
The government moved an amendment to change this motion to:
That this House believes that the General and local elections were safe and secure, and produced results that were fair and accurate; recognises that public confidence in the electoral process is paramount; and believes that the Government's constitutional changes have strengthened democratic accountability, bringing our institutions closer to the people.
The question which was before the House was whether to keep the original wording to the motion, and those voting Aye were therefore supporting the motion as it was originally proposed. Those voting No were opposing the motion although not necessarily supporting the amendment.
Vote (b) : Electoral Integrity - 22 Jun 2005 at 18:59 - Division No. 19
Those voting Aye adopted the motion:
This House believes that the General and local elections were safe and secure, and produced results that were fair and accurate; recognises that public confidence in the electoral process is paramount; and believes that the Government's constitutional changes have strengthened democratic accountability, bringing our institutions closer to the people.
after having rejected the original words in the previous division. You can see the difference between the two votes, which includes those who disagreed with both motions, here.
Difference in Votes - sorted by party
MPs for which their vote on Motion (a) differed from their inverted vote on Motion (b). You can also see just opposite votes between these two divisions, or simply all the votes.
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote (a) | Vote (b)
Division Similarity Ratio
The measure of similarity between these two divisions is a calculation based on a comparison of their votes.
There were 644 MPs who could have voted in both of these divisions, and 56 voted the same way, with 472 voting in opposite ways. There were 101 MPs who didn't vote in either division, and 15 who voted in only one of them.
We invert the vote on the second division if it makes the distance closer (since the meaning of 'Aye' and 'No' are often interchangeable depending on how the question was put). In this case, they line up on opposite sides. An 's vote in in only one of the divisions contributes a factor of 0.2 to the distance. The calculation runs as follows:
([same-votes] + [differing-votes] + 0.2x[abstain-in-one])
(472 + 56 + 0.2x15)
531