You can find out how your elected representative voted here amongst other places.
But can you find out why?
You could write to your MP and ask but they do not have to answer you. If they gave you the time of day, would you want them to explain the basis for their vote by reference to any evidence? Would you like them to explain their rationale, level of knowledge, expertise or any advice they took on a topic?
What if, in the absence of any explanation, they simply told you that they “believed” or “felt” something and therefore they either voted on a bill or backed government policy on their belief or feelings alone.
What if you and others had furnished them with evidence in order to educate them or challenge their previously expressed feelings or beliefs? What if you did this on an ongoing basis, using data and information released not just by respectable third parties e.g. scientists and medics, but also using government produced data and publications?
What if, in the face of the above, your MP attempted to effectively stonewall you and refused to engage with any of that evidence and information and simply clung to their unexplained beliefs and feelings?
The sad news is that research has shown that politicians don’t necessarily have greater ability or propensity to make fact-based decisions and may “double down” in the face of evidence that should make them stop and think.
Researchers have shown that politicians don’t let facts get in the way of their beliefs
In a series of experiments, politicians were given raw data and asked to evaluate a private or public service. The researchers used three examples; a school, road maintenance, and a rehabilitation center. In the first experiment, researchers were asked to look at surveys of parent satisfaction from two schools—a private school and a public school. In one group, parents were more satisfied with the service provided in the private school, while in the other, parents were more satisfied with the public school. There was also a placebo group, where participants were asked which school was providing the better service, school A or B (there was no mention of it being a private or public school). Researchers carried out the same experiment with another group of politicians, but this time on something less contentious in policy making—road maintenance. Christensen point out that during both experiments, the “information is quite unambiguous.”
Despite this, the findings showed that when politicians were asked to evaluate the information, around 84% to 98% of politicians that received information that fit their prior belief interpreted the information they were given correctly. However, politicians who received information at odds with their beliefs correctly interpreted the information correctly only 38% to 61% of the time.
Sadly, real world examples of this abound. Watch this space.