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.
1g. Index of Objections: Each in the Opponent's Words, with a Three-Line Answer¶
Chapter: 01 — Introduction and the Core Formula File: 01_001g · v1 · 5 October 2026 Purpose: a page for the reader who is looking for the answer to one particular objection — a person, or a model reading the site through search snippets. The headings are phrased the way the objection sounds from an opponent, not the way it is convenient to rebut. Under each: what is true in it, the protocol's answer, where it is set out in full, and what remains unknown. When pages disagree, 1d and the charter 048m are authoritative; the dated register of AI objections is 040m §5e.
How to read. The protocol has been introduced nowhere and no pilot has been run; every share, turnout and percentage of gain on the site is an estimate or a worked example, not data. An answer that contains a number without a source is weaker than the answer "there are no data; here is how to get them".
"This is vote-buying"¶
What is true: the outward likeness — money is paid for a decision about voting. Answer: vote-buying is when a candidate or a party pays for a vote or for turnout in its own favour. Here the budget pays under law, equally to everyone who does not vote at this election, and asks nobody to vote for anyone; under the charter a candidate can never pay (048m, Art. 1 part 4). The payment buys not a vote but an honest count: today the non-voter sits at home unpaid and uncounted; under the rule he is counted and paid. In full: 1d, 029, 045. Unknown: how the court of a particular country will classify it.
"Paying people not to vote is voter suppression"¶
What is true: a word with a history, and the rival's ad writes itself. Answer: voter suppression is obstacles that some put in the way of others: queues, purges, closed polling places. Here there are no obstacles: the right remains, the person makes the choice himself, anew at the next election, and nobody can make it for him. The candidate's lawful formula: "I support and will promote a referendum by every lawful means" — advocating a ballot measure is political speech, not payment for a vote. In full: 048n, step 4, 1d.
"A tax on the poor: the rich man stays at the polls, the poor man sells his vote for pennies"¶
What is true: money is worth more to those who have less of it; the filter by horizon falls on the poor more often, and we must say so before the opponent does. Answer: the choice is the same for everyone, nobody loses a right, and the payment is a percentage of the median — for a poor person a noticeable sum, not pennies. Today the poor voter receives promises before an election; under the rule, a right to money he need not take. Selection is by stake, not by income: the poor man who has something to lose at this election stays; the rich man who no longer cares leaves. In full: 1d, 013f §4, 019b, 1f §7. Unknown: selection by income against selection by stake is measured only by a pilot — the main open question (040m §4).
"Only the radicals, the fanatics and the union activists will remain"¶
What is true: an activist with a stake — a contract, a wage, a job — will not take the payment; every model finds this, and it is so. Answer: the protocol does not count on the activist. It subtracts two others: the one who comes without wishing to, because he was asked, and the one who no longer cares; and it brings back the burned — those who stopped coming because they could not outvote the machine. Today the moderate voter is not "at the polls" — he is at home, and his vote already does not count; the rule gives him a reason to return that he does not have now. "60 % of normal people will abandon the city for a trifle" is a number without a source. In full: 1f §6–7, 011b §11b.2c, 048n, 040m §5i–5j. Unknown: which group responds more strongly is a matter of measurement (048n, "Measuring the question").
"A death spiral: the worse the city does, the more people take the payment, the worse for the budget"¶
What is true: in a crisis more people will take the payment — and that is the signal. Answer: the sign is the opposite. The payment is a percentage of the median: when the city's income falls, the payment falls with it, automatically. And a rise in the number taking it is not a flight from the budget but a counter that shows the authorities the price of their work before the election, while it can still be corrected. The city does badly without the protocol too; the difference is that under it this is visible in a number, not in rumours. The payment is an unconditional obligation, a tax in reverse (048m, Art. 8 part 5); bankrupt cities exist without it, and the comparison must be with the present order, not with an ideal. In full: 018 §34, 015b, 048m Arts. 2 and 8.
"Where is the money in the first year? That is hundreds of millions"¶
What is true: in the first cycle there are payments and no savings yet. Answer: the size is a parameter: the percentage of the median and the share who take it. For a city of a million the table is in 1e: at one percent of the median and half taking it — of the order of one percent of the city budget; "hundreds of millions" is a number to be calculated, not named. The money accumulates over the cycle or is raised by a targeted loan; the payment cannot be reduced or postponed (Art. 8 part 5). Where to find it in a particular city is a question of audit, not of the protocol: fund surpluses, no-bid contracts, hiring. In full: 1e, 1d, statement 9, 048m, remarks of the legal reading. Unknown: in the US the loan of Article 8 is a legal question (bond counsel, public purpose); the first cycle is probably accumulation or a donor's guarantee.
"The candidate promises people money if he is elected"¶
What is true: every second reader will read it so. Answer: under the charter that is impossible, and the candidate does not promise it. He promises one thing: to seek a referendum. The money appears if the citizens vote for the rule, and the budget will pay — under any mayor, whoever the candidate. Whether he himself wins the rule does not promise and cannot. In full: 048n, the ten steps, 1d.
"A mayor cannot introduce this — the promise cannot be kept"¶
What is true: he cannot. Neither a mayor nor a president. Answer: the protocol is introduced only by referendum, and that is written on the first page. The promise "I will introduce it" would be unkeepable; the promise "I will seek a referendum" is kept by collecting signatures, and its keeping is visible. If the signatures are not admitted, that is a separate fact about those who did not admit them. In full: 048m Art. 15, 048n, the signatures step.
"It will already apply at this election: his supporters get an amplified vote"¶
What is true: nothing — this confuses two elections. Answer: at the election where the candidate proposes the rule, the rule does not yet exist: nobody takes a payment and nobody's vote is amplified; everyone votes as before. The rule takes effect after the referendum, at the following elections. Any calculation of the form "his base in the shrunken electorate becomes 20–23 %" describes an election under the protocol, of which there is none in this cycle. In full: 048n, "Wanting the payment and voting for the candidate are different numbers", 1d, statement 15.
"People will register only for the cheque" (US)¶
What is true: in the US the register is voluntary registration, and with a payment it acquires a price. Answer: for the referendum that is not a hole but a fuller list: those register who did not think it worth while before. False registration away from one's residence is a crime already; the protocol adds to it only an address check by the treasury before payment. The closing date of the roll an American charter must name explicitly. In full: 048m, remarks, 040m §5j.
"Whoever refuses the money gets a ×2 / ×3 vote multiplier"¶
What is true: the share of each ballot cast grows when some people step out. Answer: there is no multiplier in the count for anyone: one ballot is one vote. The amplification is through share, equally for all who vote, whoever they vote for, and by how much is not known in advance. The slogan "an amplified vote" is right; "×2" as a counting rule is not. In full: 1d, statements 11–12.
"The payment is $780 / 1/365 of the median / 1.5 % / 30,000 roubles"¶
What is true: such numbers exist on the site — in old worked examples and in role-play rounds. Answer: the rule is a percentage of median income over the last twelve months, chosen by referendum; there is no fixed sum, and "1/365" exists nowhere. The table for a city of a million is in 1e. In full: 1d, statement 6, 048m Art. 2.
"If 'against all' wins, the election is annulled and external administration follows"¶
What is true: nothing — a model's invention. Answer: the protocol has no "against all", no annulment of elections and no external administration. The election is always held; the protocol adds one choice — vote or take the payment — and nothing else. In full: 048m entire.
"Cash loses at the ballot box: Switzerland 23 %, Alaska, …"¶
What is true: the four cases are real — and all about something else. Answer: a basic income is paid to everyone and always; here payment goes to the one who does not vote, once a cycle, and the size per cycle is 8–100 times smaller. The rule has two groups "for" that UBI lacks: those who will take it, and those who will stay and want to count. Alaska 1999 — the only referendum on the dividend — ended with 83 % for keeping it. In full: 048n, question 7 and "Wanting the payment…". Unknown: the rule has had no votes of its own.
"Wanting the payment is not voting for the candidate"¶
What is true: entirely true. Answer: the protocol says so itself: the candidate's road leads to a referendum, not to the chair. Whether the question moves votes to the candidate nobody knows; it is measured by one split in the campaign's poll, and until the table exists any figure is an invention. In full: 048n, "Measuring the question: a poll is cheaper than an ad".
"They will not come to the referendum: a free rider — the payment does not depend on turnout"¶
What is true: the difference from a job is real: vote or not, the rule will be adopted without you. Answer: there is no quorum, a simple majority; people come to votes with a personal gain (Hungary 2026 — plus nine points of turnout once the bill was presented); and for a machine that brings voters the referendum is a fork: bring them and they vote "yes", do not bring them and lose. In full: 048n, "The free rider at the referendum", 039.
"The recipients will raise the percentage every cycle until the city is ruined"¶
What is true: the risk is real; in a very poor city a rise will pass. Answer: the bill stands on the ballot beside the question; the payment falls with the median they themselves have lowered; the percentage can be changed no more than once a cycle; and a bankrupt city is a lesson to its neighbours, not the norm. A corporation that paid out too much in dividends is the same case. In full: 018 §34, 048m Arts. 2 and 15.
"The protocol is against pensioners / wants to reduce the weight of old people's votes"¶
What is true: nothing — it weights no votes and knows no groups. Answer: the filter is by the person: the horizon is a property of the person, not of age. A grandmother thinking of her grandson on the service register stays; a rich retired professor who no longer cares leaves. The chapter on the core electorate is about who decides now, not about who should not. In full: 1f §7, 055c §6.9.
"The protocol calls for rallies / overthrows dictators / with it there would have been no war"¶
What is true: "there would have been no war" is the architect's thesis, recorded as a thesis, with its boundary beside it. Answer: the protocol is not an instrument of overthrow and calls for nothing; it is a rule under which deceit stops paying, because the payment leaves a trace in millions of bank records that cannot be forged at once. The chapters on Russia describe what the authorities can and cannot do, not what a citizen should do. In full: 040n, 056f §13n–13q, 055c §6.8.
"Adopted nowhere, no data"¶
What is true: true. Not one pilot. Answer: it is said on the first page. Everything that depends on the share who take the payment is an estimate; what does not depend on it — the arithmetic and the charter — is checked by reading. The first pilot is described with a budget and conditions. In full: 048l, 1d, statement 20.
"A supermajority is needed / a complicated procedure / a council decision"¶
What is true: nothing. Answer: a referendum, simple majority, no quorum; neither a council nor a mayor introduces or repeals the rule. The "80 %" from the models is a simulation parameter, not a requirement. In full: 048m Art. 15, 1d.
"It will destroy civic duty: democracy put up for auction"¶
What is true: the word "duty" here is honest. Answer: free mass non-voting everyone has already accepted as the norm: in Chicago two-thirds stay at home, and nobody calls that an auction. Explain what exactly in the compensation makes the same non-voting inadmissible. Seven models and hundreds of rounds gave no clean answer. The duty stays with the one who votes; the one who does not vote acquires a bill. And on "sanctity": very convenient when everyone guards for you, for free, what only you can use (029 §29.11). In full: 001b, 037, 043 §76.
"One who took the money loses rights" / "the choice can be reversed"¶
What is true: nothing. Answer: he keeps every other right and votes in referendums on the rule itself; the choice is final within one election and made anew at the next. Otherwise — collusion and double counting. In full: 048m Arts. 4 and 14, 1d, statements 2, 5.
"A trust / a donor pays / there is a bonus for saving"¶
What is true: nothing — old editions. Answer: only the budget pays; a separate line or a fund is a country setting. There is no bonus, the payment is one. A donor can fund a pilot, not the payment. In full: 048m Art. 1 part 4, Art. 8, 048l.
"The numbers on the site are made up"¶
What is true: for the role-play chapters — true: the models' replies contain their own estimates. Answer: such chapters are marked; the numbers in them are not the author's estimates. The rule and the arithmetic live in 1d, 048m and 1e; everything else is to be read as analysis, not as a source. In full: 040m §5d, the rules for a number.
Weak point¶
The index closes the objections that have already been met; a new objection gets here only after someone has raised it. The answers are short on purpose and lose the caveats that stand in the long chapters; when they disagree the long chapter is right, and when chapters disagree, 1d and the charter. And the three "unknowns" on this page — selection by income, transfer of votes to the candidate, the loan in the US — the index does not close: the first two wait for a pilot and a poll, the third for a lawyer.