Make the relationship between stated position and the votes clearer on the *MP Votes on Policy* page

[brtrx]

As mentioned in #1085, it may be possible to help users more quickly understand the way TWFY comes to the conclusion that someone votes "very strongly for" a policy.

While the explanation at the bottom of the page is really excellent, users need to overcome a few barriers at the moment:

• a change of language (from "votes" to "divisions") at least at the top of the page
• physical separation of the explanation from what needs explaining (they need to scroll past all the divisions before they become aware that there is an explanation available)

In my suggestion in #1085, I tried to bring the agreement score higher up the page, and use that as an anchor link to the explanation. I can see though that while this score explains the logic behind the stated position, it may give a false sense of accuracy. After all, that score is only as good as the identification of divisions as belonging to a policy or as being relatively important votes.

Not sure how to solve this one, but as @equivalentideas pointed out, it's worth separating out into its own issue.

[equivalentideas]

Thanks @brtrx this is a good explanation of the issue :+1:

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because there has been no activity on it for about six months. If you want to keep it open please make a comment and explain why this issue is still relevant. Otherwise it will be automatically closed in a week. Thank you!

[mlandauer]

Not sure what to do with this one. I think the point that @brtrx makes a very valid one - it's quite hard to understand what the connection is between the words "so and so voted strongly for" and the details of the votes. It's explained in detail on a page but that detail could be easily missed because it's at the bottom of the page.

Maybe rather than adding a new visual element as suggested in #1085 we instead change the order of the explanation?

Using the page https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/melbourne/adam_bandt/policies/91 as an example.

Right now the order on the page:

• Adam Bandt voted very strongly for a fast transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy
• List of relevent divisions
• Details of the points
• How the points get converted to a percentage
• Then how the percentage gets converted to a phrase "voted very strong for"

It could be changed to:

• Adam Bandt voted very strongly for a fast transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy
• Adam Bandt has a 100% score which gets translated to "voted very strongly for"
• 100% score comes from getting 20 points out of a possible 20 points
• And this is the breakdown of points for each division

The second order follows the flow much more of how the thing is worked out (well in reverse actually). Is this better? Is this more confusing?

[mlandauer]

Related to #1271

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because there has been no activity on it for about six months. If you want to keep it open please make a comment and explain why this issue is still relevant. Otherwise it will be automatically closed in a week. Thank you!