Jersey · Voting Patterns
Who votes like whom
Most of Jersey’s States Members sit as independents; only a minority stand for a party. This matrix compares every tracked member’s voting record against every other member’s in the 2022–2026 Assembly, across 884 recorded divisions, to see what informal voting blocs the record reveals. Hover or tap any square for the pair behind it, or pick a member below to pin their row and see who they vote closest to — and least like. How this is calculated.
Colour is relative to this matrix, not a fixed 0-100% scale — every cell’s exact percentage and shared-vote count is in the tooltip. Pale grey squares mark pairs with too few shared votes to compare confidently.
Voting blocs
Grouping members by how closely their whole pattern of agreement across the chamber tracks anyone else’s — not just raw agreement, which most pairs score fairly high on — turns up a consistent shape: one larger, more tightly aligned group and several smaller, looser ones. Read it as a description of how this Assembly currently votes, not a declared allegiance.
Each bar is the average agreement within that group. The vertical marker on every bar is the whole-Assembly average (83.5%) — only a bar clearing that line is more internally aligned than the chamber is on average; the rest are closer to typical background agreement than to a bloc of their own.
Group 1 · the largest
24 membersIts members agree with each other more than the Assembly agrees on average — a group that votes together more tightly than the chamber as a whole.
Group 2
13 membersIts members agree with each other more than the Assembly agrees on average — a group that votes together more tightly than the chamber as a whole.
Group 3
11 membersIts members agree with each other more than the Assembly agrees on average — a group that votes together more tightly than the chamber as a whole.
Group 4
1 memberA single member whose voting record does not track any of the other groups closely.
This groups members by their recorded votes only, not by any position they’ve declared or any party they stood for — names within each card are ordered by how distinctly they define that group, so one near the top of a card is closer to its centre than one near the bottom, whose placement is closer to a coin flip. How this is calculated.
How to read this
For each pair of members, we look at every division where both cast a substantive vote (“pour” or “contre”) and calculate the share of those shared votes where they voted the same way. Abstentions, absences and non-voting positions (recused, presiding) aren’t counted as agreement or disagreement — they’re simply excluded from that pair’s comparison, the same way promise delivery is scored. Procedural motions (lodging periods, adjournments, suspensions of Standing Orders) are excluded too, since they test a view on chamber process rather than policy.
Members are arranged so that similar voting records sit near each other, making clusters easier to spot — the order itself has no meaning beyond that. A pale grey square means fewer than 15 shared votes were recorded for that pair, too few to read anything into.
This measures voting alignment only. It says nothing about whether either member kept their own promises — see promise delivery rankings for that.