Adam Bandt Representative for Melbourne Australian Greens Consistent votes: 72
Anthony Albanese Representative for Grayndler Australian Labor Party Leader of the Opposition Consistent votes: 68
Zali Steggall Representative for Warringah Independent Consistent votes: 22
Peter Dutton Representative for Dickson Liberal Party Minister
+1 more offices Consistent votes: 82

Adam "the Anthony" Zali-Peter

Perfect 💔 Pollie

Adam "the Anthony" Zali-Peter

Adam "the Anthony" Zali-Peter has the look, but doesn't have any big ticket policies … despite subscribing to a soggy sandwich of Australian Labor Party and Australian Greens thinking (with a side of blueberries).

🏆 ❤️ 🤨

Adam "the Anthony" Zali-Peter Policy Platform™

1. Big ticket policies ⭐️🏆

Actions speak louder than words. Adam "the Anthony" Zali-Peter is so passionate about these polices that there's really no question about the way they'll vote. So inspiring!

Actions speak louder than words. Nonetheless, Adam "the Anthony" Zali-Peter remains somewhat confused about which policies to go all-in on.

2. Strongly held beliefs 👍

Adam "the Anthony" Zali-Peter believes in these policies, and votes consistently on them, even if a very small part of them can't really be bothered.

Nothing to see here. There's too much confusion. I can't get no belief.

recognising local government in the Constitution

Adam, Anthony and Peter agree that local government should be recognised in the Australian Constitution
Aligned Parties: Australian Greens, Australian Labor Party, CWM, DPRES, Independent, Liberal Party, Liberal-National Coalition, National Party
increasing access to the JobKeeper Payment

Adam, Anthony and Zali agree that the JobKeeper payment, which is part of the federal government's response to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, should be made available to more workers, including casual workers, workers with major charities, working-visa holders who are still in the country, and workers in sectors such as Education, Disability and Local Government
Aligned Parties: Australian Greens, Australian Labor Party, Independent

3. And some weakly held ideals 👋

Adam "the Anthony" Zali-Peter gives themself the benefit of the doubt on this confusing mix of policies … all consistently voted for, but with only half a head in it.

Even if Adam "the Anthony" Zali-Peter had some weakly held policy ideals, they'd probably be worthy of big ticket status. This section is wildly unnecessary!

increasing fishing restrictions

Adam and Anthony agree that the federal government should increase fishing restrictions so that fish populations are sustainable
Aligned Parties: Australian Greens, Australian Labor Party, Independent, Jacqui Lambie Network
letting environmental groups challenge the legality of certain government decisions

Adam and Anthony agree that environmental and conservation groups should be able to challenge the legality of federal government decisions made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (in other words, they should have standing to seek judicial review under that Act)
Aligned Parties: Australian Greens, Australian Labor Party, DPRES, Independent
privatising government assets

Peter agrees that the federal government should privatise government owned assets
Aligned Parties: DPRES, Liberal National Party, Liberal Party, Liberal-National Coalition

I don't get it. Please explain. 🤔

It's just a face mashup of Australian politicians (pollies), backed up by a sprinkle of real data.
Every face is unique! There are currently 2,495,102,400 possible combinations (that's billions). So, in all likelihood, you're the only person that will ever lay eyes on “Adam "the Anthony" Zali-Peter” … unless they're worth a share!
It's fun 🎉 because the frankenstein faces look ridiculous, and because you get a little bit of insight into what the pollies and parties are about. It's also less shouty than question time (or any political communication for that matter). Officially, the intention here is to educate the public, raise awareness and encourage debate 🥸.
How do the numbers work? On this site we're only interested in consistent voting, so at an individual level we're looking at the policies that have been voted on the same way, every time. Yes shortfalls / but also simplicity.
We compare the policies and the vote from each of our selected politicians (a yay or nay) and compile a list of policies that all (who voted) agree on:
1. "Big ticket" policies are those that all four voted on and agreed on. The same vote on every division, every time.
2. "Strongly held" policies have at least three people voting and agreeing (the other person didn't vote at all).
3. "Weakly held" policies have only one or two people agreeing and consistently voting. The missing people haven't voted on this policy so we don't know how they feel.
Finally, for party comparisons we check for a simple majority on each policy. If our individual's vote goes the same way we summise that they are voting with the party (regardless of their actual party).
You can find a lot more ins and outs of the vote-counting system (that's the one behind our system) on the They Vote for You website, which is our data source and provides all the sordid details of how votes are recorded and weighed (it's complicated!)
Technology-wise it's all pretty lo-fi, but we can boast that we used AI (AI!) (🤖!) to get the faces to match .. and some other stuff we won't boast about. The data is reproduced under the ODbL. The code is open source.
Oh, and it's a work-in-progress and constantly improving. So yes, expect mistakes. Many, many mistakes.
If you've got any great ideas or fabulous concerns please get in touch (hello@) or via github.