Progressive Party Platform

We recognize that people around the world all seek similar things: dignity, security, economic justice, human rights, and a healthy environment.

Unlike Democrats and Republicans we support these platform stances.


• We have worked for real campaign finance reform, not the fake “reforms” promoted by Democrats and Republicans. The Democratic Party of Oregon even opposed the 2006 Oregon campaign finance reform ballot measures that severely limited corporate influence in Oregon’s elections.

• We want a State Bank, modeled after North Dakota’s, to invest in Oregon jobs for Oregonians and to stop the State Treasurer and the Oregon Investment Council from speculating in the stock market and jumping in bed with corporate raiders and Wall Street fast-buck artists.

• We want fair taxation. Even after Measure 66 and 67 Oregon still has the 4th highest income taxes of any state on lower-income working families and is still at the bottom in taxes on corporations.

• We want to stop government promotion of gambling (like video poker and video slots) and stop giving away $100 million per year in commissions to the “delis” that have these addictive machines.

• We want to make the initiative and referendum again available to grassroots efforts, instead of making it so complicated and expensive that only corporations, unions, and out-of-state special interests can afford to use it.

• We advocate abolishing the Oregon Senate, leaving the 60 member Oregon House of Representative. Keeping two bodies in the State Legislature allows both to become beholden to corporate interests and avoid responsibility.


Human Rights/Dignity

• We support same sex marriage and full equal rights for all regardless of sexual orientation. Our family values are that all members of the human family deserve compassion, equality, and love.

• The U.S. will adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and use all resources to influence our trading partners to do the same.

• The U.S. will not provide economic or military aid to regimes that practice genocide, aparthaid, and break international human rights laws.

• We oppose “free trade” deals and economic policy that reduces the opportunities, environmental safety, and human rights of individuals in the developing world.

• We support Health Care as a human right. Single Payer, Improved and Expanded Medicare for all is the solution the the health care crisis.

• We want to end racial and immigrant profiling and end the militarization of our police.


• We advocate a strong United Nations as the guarantor of world peace; the U.S. military budget will be markedly reduced and the Department of Peace will be instituted.

• The U.S. will never again engage in a preventive war of choice and will only act unilaterally when our security is clearly threatened.

• We must end the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

• The U.S will ban all arms exports and use our leverage with our trading partners to influence them to do the same and not increase weapons exports as is the current Democratic Administration’s agenda to increase overall U.S. exports.

• The U.S. will not interfere in the activities of democratically elected governments anywhere.

• The U.S. will have effective gun control.


• Every American will have access to a quality education to the full extent of their abilities.

• Every American will have access to guaranteed quality health care, regardless of their financial means.

• Immigrant workers will receive full protection of our labor laws.

Economic Justice

• We oppose Wall Street bailouts and believe people must be placed over profit.

• End “too big to fail” policy.

• We will work to end poverty.

• Our minimum wage laws will be adjusted to ensure that every full-time adult worker receives a living wage.

• Trade policy will embrace workers' rights, environmental protection, and living wages around the world.

• The "personhood" of corporations will end.

• We believe in a balanced federal budget, except in times of national emergency.


• We need a sustainable energy future where we say NO to nuclear, coal, and offshore drilling.

• Present and future generations are entitled to a healthy environment; sustainability will be our guide.

• Funding environmentally sound alternative energy sources will be a top national priority.

Don't Forget Software Reform

Great start. I urge you to consider what EU greens added to their platform, this cycle.

"Blank Check Information Technology" is one of the biggest pieces of pork in budgets, from city to Federal level. They have added a plank to open all software contracts to open bids, require explicit requirements and goals, and limit development to open source software.

This is a huge issue and cuts across many of your policy items.

Clarify difference from Greens

If our elections were legitimate, as they'd be if we had verifiable vote-counting, then progressives' best voting-strategy would be to all vote for the best-known, most popular progressive.

Obviously that's Dr. Jill Stein.

If progressives divide their votes between all of their favorites, then they give away the election, by their split vote.

The question before us isn't _which_ progressive we want. The question is: Do we want a progressive at all...or do we want the Republocrats to keep winning?

But all of that assumes that the elections are legitimate.

What we really need to do is: Demand verifiable vote-counting. Until we have that, Republocrats will continue to win, even if everyone votes for the same progressive.

Michael Ossipoff

Jill Stein is the nominee of

Jill Stein is the nominee of both the Pacific Green Party and the Oregon Progressive Party.

I recently moved to oregon

I recently moved to oregon and registered to vote Progressive. However, i have some issues with your proposed platform.

1. I agree that the US should adhere to the UDHR. However, using "all resources to influence our trading partners to do the same" ends up being a form of imperialism, given the imbalance of resources in favor of the US. For example, the embargo of cuba remains in effect, at least in part, because of the claim by the US government that cuba does not respect what the US considers human rights. The effect of the embargo is often to deny human rights, such as medicine, to cubans. Regardless of one's position on the premise that cuba violates human rights to begin with, the embargo is obviously counterproductive.
One key human right is national sovereignty and self-determination, which is the right of one nation not to be unduly controlled or influenced by another. The US, as a global hegemon, tends to violate this right on a daily basis in many different places simultaneously. This platform plank seems to support such bullying, at least in the economic arena.
I therefore propose eliminating the second clause of the first human rights bullet.

2. I oppose the first bullet of the section on security. The UN was set up in order that the Great Powers could continue to impose their will on the world in the new order that followed the second world war. This is why only the Great Powers have permanent seats and veto power in the security council. So long as the USSR was there as an effective counterbalance to the west, however, the UN was, to some extent, a voice for peace. This changed in 1991. The UN fanned the flames in Yugoslavia, and acts as an occupying imperial force today, on behalf of both France and the US, in the shantytowns of haiti, ever since the invasion of that country by those powers in 2004.
I do not oppose the existence of the UN, but i oppose what it has become, and do not think that now is the time to cede it more power. Unlike even the US government, the UN is answerable to no polity, save perhaps the aforementioned permanent members of the security council, especially the US executive.

3. In the fourth Security bullet, i oppose the use of the words "democratically elected." Again, the issue is sovereignty. Why should the principle of non-intervention be limited to those countries that the US government considers "democratically elected"? Democratically elected governments are not necessarily good ones. Hitler, for example, was democratically elected. Juan Peron in his first administration was not elected, but was wildly popular. The same is true of Ho Chi Minh. The US has no right to impose its form of government on others. Period.

4. The second security bullet, about "preventive war of choice" is awkward and vague. Did you borrow rumsfeld's terminology or what? How about, "In keeping with the UN Charter, we oppose all wars of aggression."

Just friendly suggestions.


Your Comments

Dave, you hit the nail on the head. The true name of this party should be the "slightly progressive, but mostly status quo party". Most of the wording especially in the foreign policy sections are imperialist doctrine and continue the dangerous dogma of "American Execeptionalism", or father knows best.


Under economic justice, it says that each "fulltime adult", suggesting that there may be some adults who ar adult only parttime. Pretty cool idea but likely not what you meant.

where can progressive Democrats go

We should follow the actions of Representative Alan Grayson of Florida He has introduced five bills to counter the Supreme Court's decision to accord personhood rights to corporations. It may lead to having many progressive Democrats leave the party and join the Progressives.

Proposed platform and Second Amendment rights

I'm in favor of the Oregon Progressive Party's entire platform, as proposed, with the exception of this plank: "The U.S. will have effective gun control." I urge the party to reject it.
I loathe violence, hate war and oppose the power of the military/industrial complex, but I do not trust it and its mercenaries, police and other "authorities" to be the only legitimate possessors of firearms in our democracy.
Remember, one of the first acts of Hitler's fascist regime was to disarm individual citizens and reserve the right to keep and bear arms soley for members of the military, police and other government agencies and a militia composed of brown-shirted Nazi thugs.
Our Constitution's Bill of Rights contains an explicit recognition of the right to keep and bear arms and an implicit acknowledgment of our need to be able to protect ourselves and to resist domestic, as well as foreign, tyranny.
Progressives, who love democracy and despise despotism, must do our utmost to honor and preserve each of our sacred civil liberties, including this one. We are the heirs of American revolutionaries. It is our sacred duty to be careful custodians of the rights they fought for and the freedoms they bequeathed us.

Second that Second Amendment.

Thank you for speaking up, Steven. I'm also a pro-gun rights liberal. I get that people die due to accidents and malicious acts involving firearms. However it just isn't borne out that gun control will stop this. Education will stop this. Enforcing the existing laws against violence with jail time will stop this, and we can lock up more serious offenders when we release all the nonviolent drug offenders and legalize and regulate drugs. Legalizing and regulating drugs will reduce all types of violence, including gun violence. Keeping me, a responsible citizen, from keeping and bearing arms will only embolden criminals and potentially make me and those I could have protected a victim.
I was just notified by the Oregon Democrat Party Gun Owners Caucus that I'd be removed as a member since I've registered as a member of the Progressive party. It saddened me a bit, as the GOC was the only thing I liked about the Oregon Democrat Party. I'm not willing to be railroaded by anti-gun paranoia into voting against my interests, but I won't abide "gun control" without a vigorous debate.

Proposed platform and Second Amendment rights

Thanks for the comments. Vigorous debate is what this party is about. We will post some polls to ask members their thoughts on this and other subjects.

Gun Control

I think that we should have a gun control policy that allows civilians to use and own guns. Guns are usually only a problem in cities and when criminals and gangs use them for violence. To me that is what an effective gun control policy would look like.

Gun Control Poll

I'm glad to see I'm not the only liberal who believes in gun rights. I've never been a big fan of gun control. I believe that if we provide our citizens with health care, if we do more to help families living in poverty, and we create better paying jobs that actually cover the cost of living, that these things will do more to stem the tide of gun violence than any prohibition law could possibly do. I also really like the idea of a poll to find out where the rest of the Oregon Progressive Party stands on this issue.

Gun Control

Look at the numbers. Clearly this country has a problem with gun violence. Other democracies have addressed the issue and we need to learn from their experience

Gun control

As a resident of a nation with pretty strong gun laws i think people should look at one clear statistic.
Do countries with more liberal gun laws have a lower or higher murder rate using guns. I think you will find that far more people in copuntries like US and S Africa get killed with guns compared for instance with the UK

Utopian pipe dream

This platform was written as a Utopian pipe dream.

This is not the same platform that is on the Oregon State elections department website.

Instead of progressive party, how about "Alternative lifestyle Socialists for big government"

I do agree that several points are very valid, but many are inappropriate if you want to attract a larger constituency.

I cant support a party that is super pro big government, anti business, pro gun control, anti free trade, anti energy, pro illegal immigration, etc.

The platform should be reduced and thought out better.

Wow. I must admit, your

Wow. I must admit, your "ignorant, red-neck logic" is quite invigorating. I suppose you are a biggot, who sleeps every night with one eye open, shutgun in hand, ready to save your family from the invading force of transgendered illigal immigrants who use aborted fetus' as cannon fodder. Sorry everyone for being so crude, I am just simply appalled by some peoples marvelous ability to close their minds so tight, that it actually creates a void.

anonymous too

I am not offended by what you called your "crude" verbiage but was definitely offended by your misspellings of bigot, shotgun, fetuses, people's, and illegal.

There's a party for that...

It's called the Republican party. What you describe as a party that you cannot support is the antithesis of the Republican Party, so join them if you do not agree with the Progressive agenda. Not all progressives advocate absolute gun control, and I'm sure there are members of the OPP who do not support increasingly strict gun control. We are against energy sources that pollute our global environment, since this is the only atmosphere and biological ecosystem we have, and our great-grandchildren deserve to be able to play in the woods, breathe clean air, drink water that isn't going to make them sick, and eat food that doesn't have 300 ingredients and GMOs. The OPP is not pro-illegal immigration. It is, however, pro-human rights and supports providing immigrants with options to help them become legal US citizens, not trouncing them under foot in a knee-jerk reaction. Like I said, you belong in the Republican Party or some other crazed conservative party. Socialism, when implemented correctly and under careful concern for human dignity and individual rights, is a beneficial system for everyone, not just the "society elite". Look at some "big-government socialist" countries like Norway for example (Kongerriket av Norge, precisely, which means Kingdom of Norway). That country has the highest standard of living, sends thousands of hard-working students to college FREE each year with no debts imposed upon the students, universal health care, high levels of civil protections and civil rights enjoyed by everyone therein, and countless other real benefits despite having one of the highest taxation rates that EVERYONE (even corporations and wealthy individuals, of which there are a lot) pays. Homeless statistics are quite low there, and like many other progressive nations, have large programs in place to help those less fortunate who are in a tight spot. So, do you still see a downside to socialism and having a government that is there to support EVERYONE, not just a select few?



I am wondering whether the Oregon Progressive Party would consider nominating ROCKY ANDERSON for President. From all I have seen thus far, he appears to embrace ALL of the values of the OPP.

I'd like to see ROCKY ANDERSON benefit from fusion voting as a candidate of the OPP as well as the Working Families Party and the Pacific Green Party.

I am currently a registered Democrat and Precinct Committeeman. My values are consistent with the OPP, WFP and the PGP and I am likely to change my registration to one of those after my term is up. The OPP, PGP and WFP platforms together are closest to my personal persuasion which I call "Green Libertarian Social Democrat."

Is OPP registration sufficient to field a Presidential nominee on the Oregon ballot this year? If so, what would be the proper step for someone to connect ROCKY ANDERSON with OPP to seek Presidential nomination?

In solidarity,

J. Kevin Hunt
Oregon City

The Oregon Progressive Party

The Oregon Progressive Party has nominated Rocky Anderson as its candidate for U.S. President in 2012.

No same sex marriage

I agree with almost everything that the progressive party stands for except for same-sex marriage.

Article III Branch reforms?

I would like to be directed to your Party's platform re: judicial reform. The third branch of government is also in need of serious PROGRESSIVE reform. I apologize if I missed it. "Right to counsel" in civil law? Family law courts w/o the need for outrageous court fees and their step-childern - expensive lawyers and silly motions. W/o judicial reform, your Party is only 2/3 thirds of the solution. Dean Darris, Ph.D. Professor of Political Science. Author of "American Democracy: Promise and Betrayal" jacket endorsed by Ralph Nader and Peter De Fazio.

There really is no such thing

There really is no such thing as a sustainable energy policy that says no to nuclear despite the appeal of the idea to a lot of people aligned with progressive ideas.

If you are serious about climate change policy, you should reconsider being anti-nuclear. Many leading climatologists have.

Historically a lot of the money behind anti-nuclear campaigns has come from fossil fuel lobbies that understand that nuclear is the only real threat to coal and oil. These campaigns are the source of a lot of disinformation and misperception.

Some of the things that convinced you about being antinuclear may be lies propagated by the coal lobby.

Try to look at the Science on your own with a bit of skepticism about anti-nuclear organizations.

Progressives must all voter for the same candidates.

If our elections were legitimate, as they'd be if we had verifiable vote-counting, then the only way to elect a progressive is to all vote for the same one.

...the best known & most popular one.

That's Dr. Jill Stein.

But, without verifiable vote-counting, the Republocrats will always win, no matter how anyone votes.

Demand verifiable vote-counting.

Michael Ossipoff

The Jill Stein campaign in

The Jill Stein campaign in Oregon is run by the Pacific Green Party. Those wanting signs and the like should contact the Pacific Green Party.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This human-readable test is designed to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.