Talk:Values Party

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand: Politics Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Politics: Political parties This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Environment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The United Tasmania Group, the predecessor of the Australian Greens claims to be first Greens party. Which one is correct? --Brandonfarris (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct, under different criteria. The United Tasmania Group was the first Green party - the Values Party was the first national green party. FanN | talk 12:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the citations, and as per Fanx's point about the stipulation of "national level", it seems pretty clear that the Values Party is conisdered the first national-level Green party in the cited sources. While not an objective source as such, see also http://gp.org/greenpages-blog/?p=664. I'm removing the whom tag as it seems clear that the Values Party is one of the first Green parties, is regarded as one of the founding moments of the Green movement by people within the Green movement, and probably the first National-level Green Party. If anyone would like to argue the case, I suggest editing the sentence to "one of the first" and then bringing the debate back here. --54x (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I only removed the first "by whom" template, as the claims about the party being widely regarded as the first envirnmental party, or as progenitors of the environment as a political issue needs further substantiation. --54x (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems strange to list the percentage of votes in the non-MMP elections that the Values Party contested. Percentages are meaningless in FPP elections. Can anyone shed any light on why this column is in the table? I don't know if this topic has been hashed out elsewhere. Elguaponz (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's useful because it shows the level of support the party was receiving from the population as a whole, and in the process highlights the absurdity of the FPP system. That's relevant because as far as I know, the Values Party's vote is often held up as an example of the things that were going wrong with FPP, and of the level of protest voting that was going on (ie "We received this many votes and it came to naught!"). — Ballofstring (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]