Timeline
“Inactivity” measures how often a deputy did not cast a For or Against vote on motions they could have voted on — whether absent, or present but not registering, abstaining, or not pressing. A non-vote is not neutral: a motion passes only with a majority of For votes, so being present yet not voting effectively withholds support — counting, in practice, the same as a vote against. Attendance shows how often a deputy at least registered for the sitting.
How is this calculated?
Inactivity % = (Votes available − Voted (for/against)) / Votes available = (2067 − 1770) / 2067 = 14.4%
Registered 2067 · Absent 0
· Votes available 2067
For: 930 · Against: 840 ·
Abstain: 1 · Did not vote: 196 ·
Absent: 0
How is this calculated?
Inactivity % = (Votes available − Voted (for/against)) / Votes available = (1077 − 806) / 1077 = 25.2%
Registered 1077 · Absent 0
· Votes available 1077
For: 473 · Against: 333 ·
Abstain: 1 · Did not vote: 100 ·
Absent: 0
Party loyalty % — Party loyalty is the share of a deputy's ballots cast with their faction's majority stance, over the policy votes they took part in.
Votes most like / Votes most unlike
Share of votes where both deputies cast the same For/Against ballot, over the motions both took part in (at least 50 in common).
Votes most like
- Terje Trei 100% agreement
- Robert Antropov 100% agreement
- Tõnu Juul 100% agreement
- Mait Klaassen 100% agreement
- Ülle Rajasalu 100% agreement
- Erik Salumäe 100% agreement
- Hanno Pevkur 100% agreement
- Rein Aidma 100% agreement
Votes most unlike
- Ivari Padar 18% agreement
- Evelyn Sepp 31% agreement
- Heimar Lenk 34% agreement
- Eldar Efendijev 35% agreement
- Vladimir Velman 35% agreement
- Mai Treial 35% agreement
- Mailis Reps 37% agreement
- Aadu Must 37% agreement
Parties
| term | Parties |
|---|---|
| 11. term | — Non-attached |
| 10. term | Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioon Reform Party |
Votes
| Date | Vote motion | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 2010-03-24 | 85. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 84. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 83. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 82. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 81. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 80. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 79. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 78. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 77. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 76. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 75. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 74. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 73. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 72. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 71. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 70. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 69. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 68. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 67. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 66. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 65. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 64. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 63. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 62. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 61. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 60. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 59. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 58. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 57. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 56. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 55. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 54. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 53. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 52. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 51. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 50. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 49. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 48. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 47. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 46. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 44. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 43. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 42. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 41. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 40. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 39. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 38. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 37. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 36. parandus | Against |
| 2010-03-24 | 35. parandus | Against |