The rule, exactly. Before an election each citizen chooses: to vote — or to take a payment and not vote in that election. The payment is a percentage of the median income, set by referendum; there is no fixed sum. One ballot is one vote, with no multiplier in the count; the vote is amplified only in that each ballot's share grows as others step out. The budget pays under law; a candidate never pays. Only a referendum of all citizens — simple majority, no quorum — introduces, changes or repeals the rule.

The protocol has been introduced nowhere and no pilot has been run: shares, turnout and outcome figures in the chapters are estimates, and the protocol promises nobody an election victory. If a chapter says otherwise, Exact Answers and the Charter are correct. For a candidate: ten questions and ten steps. For a citizen, a mayor, a finance officer, a donor, a journalist, a scholar, a lawyer: answers by role. Everything in force in one file: llms-full.txt.

1e. What Question Did You Come With: Short Answers by Role¶

Chapter: 01 — Introduction and the Core Formula File: 01_001e · v1 · 2 October 2026 Source: the check of 02.10.2026 (040m §5g): eight independent AI readers were given the roles of people who may need the protocol, and one link each. Each listed what it could not find on the site. This chapter answers their questions.

How to read. Nothing here is new: every line restates the charter (48m) and the exact-answers sheet (1d) and names the place it is taken from. If a line disagrees with the charter, the charter is correct. The protocol has been introduced nowhere and no pilot has been run; the numbers in the examples are arithmetic, not a forecast.

Page addresses — as text¶

A reader without markup cannot see where a link leads, so the addresses are written out in full.

Exact answers: https://docs.ab-exit.com/en/01-introduction/001d-exact-answers/
The charter: https://docs.ab-exit.com/en/08-implementation/048m-charter/
For a candidate: https://docs.ab-exit.com/en/08-implementation/048n-underdog-questions/
The courtyard pilot: https://docs.ab-exit.com/en/08-implementation/048l-courtyard-pilot/
The formal statement: https://docs.ab-exit.com/en/03-theory/013f-formal-statement/
Russia, September 2026: https://docs.ab-exit.com/en/09-other-countries/056f-russia-september-2026/
What has and has not been checked: https://docs.ab-exit.com/en/06-critique-arsenal/040m-cold-reader-audit/
Everything in force in one file: https://docs.ab-exit.com/llms-full.txt

For a citizen: "will I be paid for not voting?"¶

Nobody is paid anywhere today. This is a proposed rule. It has not been adopted anywhere.
If it is adopted: before an election you choose — to vote, or to take the money and not vote in that election.
How much. No sum is named in advance. The size is a share of the median, that is, the middle, income in your city or country. The residents themselves approve the share at a referendum. The author holds that the sum should be one that 40–50 % of residents would want to take (the charter, Articles 2 and 3).
When. At once, on the same day you chose the money (Article 6).
What you lose. Your vote in that election — and nothing else. The courts, benefits and every other right remain. The payment does not reduce benefits, is not taxed, and cannot be taken for debts, alimony excepted (Article 8).
You cannot lose the vote for good. At the next election you choose again; the right returns by itself (Article 5).
Who will know. No lists of names are published: only the numbers by precinct. But the charter does not promise to conceal specially that you took the payment (Article 9). Whom you vote for, if you vote, remains secret as before.
If you are forced to take the money or, on the contrary, to go and vote: pressure on the choice is a criminal offence. If a payment was made in your name without you, it can be contested, and you will be allowed to vote (Article 11).
If you chose nothing, the vote remains yours. If you did not vote, you can receive the payment later, but a smaller one (Article 6).
Who pays. The budget, under law. A candidate who promises to pay you himself is breaking the law.
The vote of those who stay is counted as before: one ballot, one vote. The amplification is elsewhere: the more people step out, the larger the share each ballot cast makes up.

For a mayor or a council member¶

You cannot introduce the rule by your own decision — neither the mayor nor the council (Article 14). You can support a citizens' initiative or, where the law allows, call a referendum; the residents decide by simple majority, with no turnout threshold.
A pilot may be run before the referendum on part of the territory; its results are published before the vote (Article 15).
What it costs — see "For a finance officer" below.
Where the money comes from. The budget of the level whose election it is. The money is accumulated over the cycle; if it falls short, a targeted loan is raised. The payment cannot be reduced, deferred or cancelled for lack of funds (Article 8, part 5).
What the charter threatens the authorities with. For delaying the payment, stopping the counter or changing the method — the court and an automatic recalculation by a rule written down in advance (Article 13). What the law of your country threatens, the site does not know: that is the first question for a lawyer.
Where to begin. A lawyer — what route to a referendum exists in your jurisdiction. An economist — the median, the percentage, the cost. A pilot — a courtyard or a village (48l).
What the site lacks. A ready route for a sitting mayor: chapter 48n is written for a challenger. The steps are the same but one — you do not need to get elected.

For a finance officer: what it costs¶

The cost formula. Cost per cycle = the payment × the number who took it (1d, statement 9). The payment is D = p × M: a percentage of the median income (Article 2).
The period of the median. The last twelve months for which data have been published: the median is annual, and the percentage is counted from it (Article 2; the fourteenth decision, 048k §3). What is not defined is something else: whether it is earnings or all income, and what averaging — that is left to the country's economists.
The form D = M × 1.5 × K in chapter 1 is the first version of the formula; the examples under it were computed from an annual median. A monthly median must not be put into it.
The arithmetic of an example. For Russia the author names a guide of 40–50 thousand roubles per cycle; the percentages of 1–2 % in early chapters are an illustration, not a norm, and the cost must not be calculated from them. A city: 100,000 voters, a budget of 6 billion roubles a year, a five-year cycle. The table is multiplication, not an estimate: nobody knows what the sum will be or how many people will take it.

Payment	30 % took it	50 % took it	70 % took it
20,000 roubles	0.6 bn per cycle; 120 m a year; 2.0 % of the annual budget	1.0 bn; 200 m; 3.3 %	1.4 bn; 280 m; 4.7 %
40,000 roubles	1.2 bn per cycle; 240 m a year; 4.0 %	2.0 bn; 400 m; 6.7 %	2.8 bn; 560 m; 9.3 %

"1–2 % of the budget" in early chapters was computed at a small percentage and does not apply to larger sums (1d, statement 9).
The charter has no ceiling. There is one limiter: a referendum approves the percentage, and those who pay see the bill (018 §34).
The loan. Its terms, its priority over other obligations and its accounting are not defined: the annex row "The loan and priority" is left to financiers.
Several levels. Each level of government pays at its own elections, from its own budget and from its own median (Article 7). A city budget pays only for city elections. How many payments a year one person ends up with is an open question (040m §4, question 3).
The premium for early choosers is paid from the discount on late ones (Article 6); whether that account balances has not been computed.

An example: a US city of a million residents¶

Calculated on 02.10.2026 at the architect's word. All the input numbers are from open sources; the table is multiplication.

Residents: 1,000,000. The models are Austin (1,002,632 as of July 2025) and Jacksonville (1,032,061).
Voters: 650,000 — after Jacksonville: Duval County had 651,283 active registered voters on 31 August 2026.
The general fund: 1.5 billion dollars in Austin and 2.03 billion in Jacksonville for 2026/27; 1.75 billion a year is taken for the example.
The median M: 65,052 dollars a year. This is the median weekly earnings of full-time workers — 1,251 dollars in the second quarter of 2026, Bureau of Labor Statistics — multiplied by 52. The figure is national, not the city's, and for one quarter, not four. The median for everyone who worked, by Social Security Administration data, is lower: 43,223 dollars for 2023; with it every sum below is a third lower.
The cycle: four years.

Percentage p	Payment D	30 % took it	50 % took it	70 % took it
1 %	$650	$127 m per cycle; $32 m a year; 1.8 % of the general fund	$211 m; $53 m; 3.0 %	$296 m; $74 m; 4.2 %
1.5 %	$975	$190 m; $48 m; 2.7 %	$317 m; $79 m; 4.5 %	$444 m; $111 m; 6.3 %
3 %	$1,950	$380 m; $95 m; 5.4 %	$634 m; $158 m; 9.1 %	$887 m; $222 m; 12.7 %
8.3 % — a month's median	$5,417	$1,056 m; $264 m; 15.1 %	$1,760 m; $440 m; 25.2 %	$2,465 m; $616 m; 35.2 %

What the table shows.

At 1–1.5 % with half taking it, the payment costs 3–4.5 % of the general fund a year. That is more than the "1–2 % of the budget" of early chapters, but of the same order.
At a payment the size of a month's median — a quarter of the general fund a year.
The architect's guide for Russia, 40–50 thousand roubles at a monthly median of about 40 thousand, is 8–10 % of the annual median. The American examples of early chapters, $780, are 1.5 %. One and the same measure, "desirable to 40–50 % of residents", gave percentages in the two countries that differ sixfold. Which of them is right the calculation will not say: only a pilot with different sums will show it.

A small town for a pilot¶

The architect, 02.10.2026: "a small town is probably better for a pilot". The same ratios for 25,000 residents: 16,250 voters, and a general fund, at the same spending per resident, of about 44 million dollars a year. The shares of the budget stay the same; the money is different.

Payment D	30 % took it	50 % took it	70 % took it
$650	$3.2 m per cycle	$5.3 m	$7.4 m
$975	$4.8 m	$7.9 m	$11.1 m
$1,950	$9.5 m	$15.8 m	$22.2 m

In the city of a million the row "$975, half" is 317 million dollars per cycle; in the town of 25 thousand it is 7.9 million. The second sum is commensurate with one large donor or with a loan under his guarantee for the first cycle; the first is not. The town of 25 thousand is notional: there is no real budget behind it.

For a donor or a foundation¶

What can lawfully be funded. First, a pilot in a courtyard, a homeowners' association or a village: it is not an election, and private money is in place there (48l). Second, a campaign for an initiative or a referendum where the law permits funding such campaigns. Third, expertise: an economist for the formal part (13f) and a lawyer for the charter.
What cannot. Paying voters at a real election — by anyone and under any name.
What a pilot would cost. No pilot has been run yet; this is the budget estimate of 48l §6. For 1,000 residents at a sum of 30 euros and an exit of 50 %: the payment fund is 15,000 euros; the institute — design, surveys, observation, report — 10,000–15,000; notary, application, printing — 3,000–5,000. About 28,000–35,000 euros a round in all; the second round, six months to a year later, costs the same.
What counts as success. All at once: 40–60 % took the money; those who stayed are younger than in the control courtyard; at least one person gave up the sum in order to vote "against"; the decision of those who stayed is no worse than the control one in the judgement of independent observers; those who exited accept the result; more than 80 % of participants can repeat the rule (48l §5).
What counts as failure. Fewer than a quarter or more than three-quarters took it, or those who exited dispute the result.
What a pilot will not show. A shift of parties, the fate of populists, the behaviour of the authorities: a courtyard does not yield these.
What you risk. The idea will be called vote-buying — the difference is that it is not a candidate who pays and not for a vote. There is as yet no independent review of the protocol. Behind the project stands a private person, not an organisation.
Who else has to agree. The residents of the courtyard — by a decision of their meeting; the institute that conducts the observation. The money for both rounds must be secured before the start (48l §6b).
Whether similar causes have had large donors. The table is in 48n, the section on a large donor.

For a journalist¶

What it is. A proposed electoral rule. Introduced nowhere; no pilot has been run.
Who the author is. Denis Klyavlin; born in Krasnoyarsk, lives in Chișinău; a private person. The idea was written down on 14 July 2014; the repository has been kept since 2026. The repository names no organisations or sponsors behind the project.
How the text was written. The chapters were written by the author working with an AI assistant. The assistant's errors are marked in the text and left in view.
Licence. For non-commercial use, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0; commercial use by agreement with the author.
Has anyone independent looked at it. No. A request for an external review has been sent; as of 1 October 2026 there is no reply (006b). No economist has checked the formal part. Dialogues with AI models are not a review.
Is it vote-buying? No: the budget pays under law, not a candidate; the payment is not for a vote but for giving it up; it is the same for everyone; it is open.
Where it is the author's voice, not an established fact. The README on GitHub and the chapter titles marked "the architect's view".
What the author himself regards as unanswered. The six questions in 040m §4.

For those thinking about Russia¶

What is proposed now is not to introduce the rule but to spread a question: "the vote is already paid for — to the parties; why not to the voter?" (056f §13e, §13i).
The general plan for a candidate in 48n — a lawyer, signatures, a pilot, a referendum — is written for places where a referendum is possible. It must not be applied to Russia without 056f §6–7.
What people inside the country risk. Chapter 056f §7 distinguishes two instruments. A legal collection of signatures with passport data carries a high and personal risk. An anonymous count of those who want the payment carries a risk close to zero. They must not be mixed. The site is not legal advice.
The comparison with smart voting is in 056f §13i; the numbers there are estimates.
What has been tested. In practice, nothing. The analysis of the September 2026 election is in 056f §1.

For a scholar¶

What exists. A setting with a threshold and a fixed point, five short statements, three assumptions (13f). The proofs are short and correct for the simplified model; full ones await an economist.
Known defects (13f §5b): §2 and the fourth theorem still carry the notation of the first version; the fifth theorem uses a quantity that the corrected model does not contain; the sentence "income does not enter the threshold" is true only under the second assumption.
What the model lacks. A different value of money for the poor and the rich; a welfare criterion; dependence of the distribution of stakes on the payment itself, which is paid for by a tax; the game at the referendum on introduction; candidates and outcomes.
The early chapter 13 calls the protocol "a strategy-proof mechanism" and "a resolution of the Downs paradox". That is the first version; 13f and 1d are in force: nobody has a dominant strategy.
The pilot's criterion of success is set close to a tautology; the remark is recorded in 48l §8.

For a lawyer¶

The charter is a draft for a country's lawyers, not a finished law; it tests completeness, not wording.
The remarks of a legal reading are gathered at the end of chapter 48m: undefined terms, places where articles need to be reconciled, and cases the charter does not cover — voters abroad, people without an account, death between the choice and polling day, a second round, simultaneous elections.
Not all "parameters for experts" are technical. The number of payments, the legal route, the priority of the loan and an election not held on time change the nature of the rule; these are decisions, not settings.

Weak point¶

The chapter is a restatement, and a restatement loses caveats. The table for the finance officer is built on the numbers of a test question, not on the data of a real city. The roles were chosen by the assistant; someone who comes with a different question will not find an answer here.