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.

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.

Dave

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.

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.

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.