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.
20. AB-EXIT as a Consensus Theme, Not a Wedge: Why the First Referendum Starts a Race among Politicians¶
Chapter: 04 File version: v1 Date: 2026-06-11 Source: v6.53 §62
62.1. The error of analogy: wedge versus consensus¶
It is tempting to assess the path of AB-EXIT's adoption by analogy with same-sex marriage or the legalisation of marijuana: local expression of will against federal law, slow accumulation of pressure, years before change. This analogy is false, and the error in it is systemic.
Same-sex marriage and marijuana are WEDGE themes. Support one — half the electorate is yours, half is against. Politicians were cautious for years, waited for a shift in the polls before taking the risk. Eleven years from Massachusetts (2004) to Obergefell (2015) — not because the mechanism is slow, but because the theme divided people and politicians feared losing half.
AB-EXIT is a CONSENSUS theme (sections 52, 61). The left vote for it (money to the poor), the right (freedom not to vote), centrists (quality of decisions), populists (against the elites). It is impossible to build a coalition "against" through fear — nobody loses anything, everyone receives a vote ×3 or a dividend. This is not a wedge that splits the electorate. It is a gold mine that almost everyone supports and against which one cannot openly come out without being "against your money and your vote".
The logic of caution appropriate to wedges does not apply to a consensus theme. Here the dynamic is the reverse: whoever is first to support it loudly skims all the cream.
62.2. Why a federal first-mover politician will be found — and quickly¶
Not "may be found" — competition will FORCE it. The mechanics of the first mover:
An underdog in a small town won on AB-EXIT. The referendum gave a high percentage FOR (the theme is consensual) at a turnout above the usual (the theme gives a direct personal benefit — it motivates people to come). This is a signal read instantly: here is a theme that pulls turnout and gathers a majority.
Any ambitious federal politician in the position of an underdog (losing the primaries, needing a breakthrough, seeking to differ from the establishment) sees a ready rocket. The first to ride it at the national level gets attention on the scale of Musk — but legally and with popular love instead of scandal.
And the key point: as soon as ONE has supported it and received a boost, the rest are obliged to react. Join (the theme is growing) or attack (become "those who are against your money" — a losing position). Competition turns support from a choice into a necessity. This is the principle "the politician follows demand" (the core of AB-EXIT) at the federal level.
62.3. Portrait of the first mover¶
Not an establishment centrist — he has something to lose, he is cautious. But a federal underdog: an outsider senator, a candidate from the smaller wing of a party, a governor aiming higher and looking for a national theme. The one for whom "defender of the people against the federal machine that took away the money they voted for" is a ticket from the second row to the first.
In American history such people are always found: Bryan with the "cross of gold" (1896), Perot with the deficit (1992), Sanders with inequality, Trump with the wall. An outsider who needs one powerful popular theme to take off. After a successful referendum AB-EXIT lies as a ready rocket for exactly such a person.
62.4. The trigger: the numbers of the first referendum¶
The whole dynamic — competition among politicians, the race for the theme, the federal first mover, pressure on the law (the section on the battering ram) — switches on AFTER one proven success. Before it AB-EXIT is a text, and politicians do not see it.
The trigger is the numbers of the first referendum in the first small town: a high percentage FOR at elevated turnout. This is a message a politician reads instantly. Empty theory sends no such message.
Therefore the whole strategy concentrates in one point (the eye of the needle from the launch-strategy analysis): bring one small town to a referendum and win it loudly, with strong numbers. Pass — and everything switches on: underdogs, the press, the federal first mover, pressure on 10307(c) through electoral incentive and judicial interpretation. Fail — and you remain a text.
62.5. Honest caveat¶
The race dynamic is real, but conditional on strong numbers. A weak result of the first referendum (low turnout, 51 % FOR) sends the opposite signal — "the theme doesn't catch fire" — and the race does not start. The trigger fires only on convincing figures. This raises the stakes of the first pilot: it must not merely be held, but won brightly. The choice of the first town (small, home-rule, off-year, budget crisis, a motivated underdog) is subordinated to exactly this task — to secure numbers that cannot be ignored.
62.6. Synthesis: the method of adoption repeats the method of action¶
Inside itself AB-EXIT works through "the politician follows demonstrated demand". The path of its adoption works the same way: create demand so visible (the referendum numbers) that first the local underdog, then the federal first mover, then the law itself are forced to follow. Method and goal coincide.
This is a consensus theme giving a pure benefit to the supporter without a split. For such a theme the dynamic is not cautious multi-year accumulation (as with wedges) but a race for who rides it first. Whoever is first to support it loudly does not risk — he breaks the bank. Therefore he will be found quickly. One condition: the first referendum must give numbers that cannot be ignored.