Skip to content

Use bill votes and sponsorship in MK summaries #3

Description

@yav02

This is the project's whole premise: comparing what MKs say against how they vote. Right now the summaries are built only from social media posts, so the site delivers half of what it promises.

The data is already here

db/schema.bq.sql defines bill, bill_author, bill_issue, vote_event, vote_event_issue, and mk_vote. The bill_issues/ package already scores bills against the issue taxonomy using Gemini structured output. The ingest for Knesset voting records lives in src/mk_tracking/download_knesset_data/.

What is missing is the join: nothing in src/mk_tracking/summary_creation/ reads any of it.

Design questions to settle first

This is the part that needs care, and it should be agreed before code is written.

  • Weighting. How does one vote weigh against one statement? They are not the same kind of evidence.
  • Presenting contradictions. When an MK's posts and votes disagree, the site has to show that without editorialising. The framing matters more than the mechanics.
  • Coalition discipline. A vote cast under coalition or opposition discipline is weak evidence of personal position. Treating it as strong evidence would misrepresent people.
  • Absence. Not voting is not the same as voting against, and neither is a stated position.
  • Sponsorship. Sponsoring a bill is arguably stronger evidence of a position than voting for one.

The evidence rules in ui/CONTRIBUTING.md apply here in full: only what the person actually did counts, and absence of evidence is never evidence of a moderate position.

This is the highest-value open item in the tracker.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    enhancementNew feature or request

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions