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.

B2 — a Triple-Outreach Strategy¶

Chapter: 06 — Structural Hypocrisy and the Arsenal of the Elites File version: v1 Date: 10 June 2026

How to read this chapter (note of 02.10.2026). The text contains wording that is easy to misread: "a x2 vote", "x3", "the weight of a vote" are the arithmetic of a share, not a multiplier: every ballot counts as one. The exact-answers sheet 1d and the charter 048m are in force.

31.1. Class A — the old institutional elite¶

Those who built their status through the existing system. They depend on parties, lobbyists, media channels, the existing institutions of an academic career.

Their position: "changes are needed, but which exactly — let's discuss it in commissions, assign it to experts, hold another citizens' assembly." This is the position of eternal slowing-down, because any real change threatens their position in the system.

From class A we will get formal support in 5–10 years, and active resistance now. This does not mean ignoring class A — one must work with it through long academic work via Brookings, Foreign Affairs. The goal is the removal of active resistance, not active support.

31.2. Class B — the new tech magnates¶

Those who built their status bypassing or breaking the existing system. They work through the market and technology. For them the old political system is an obstacle, not the basis of existence.

When they hear of a reform that breaks traditional political institutions — they are natural potential allies, not opponents.

This is an important distinction. When we say "go out to the reasonable elites", it is important to understand that class A and class B require opposite strategies.

31.3. Subclass B1 — constructive innovators¶

Marc Andreessen, Vinod Khosla, Reid Hoffman, Patrick Collison (Stripe), Brian Armstrong (Coinbase), Sam Altman, Mark Cuban.

They think in categories of building a better system. They want the political system to work more efficiently, because they live in it.

Their position: "the current democracy is broken, but it can be repaired through the right mechanism design." For them AB-EXIT is a natural candidate for the role of such a repair. These are natural allies.

This is the audience for fast direct work through podcasts (Lex Fridman, Naval Ravikant), personal contacts, direct letters. Six months of work. The goal is to find one or two anchor supporters.

31.4. Subclass B2 — Dark Tech (NOT ideologues but pragmatists!)¶

Peter Thiel in his more radical phase, Curtis Yarvin, Balaji Srinivasan, some crypto-maximalists.

They are usually described as "technofascists" or ideologues of replacing democracy. This is an inaccurate picture of their real position.

They do not like technofascism as an ideology. They come to it pragmatically, as the best available option given their analysis of the situation.

Their logic:

They look at democracy and see: parties no longer work, the media are bought or polarised, politicians are incapable of long-term planning, populists regularly seize power and destroy institutions
They systematically go through all the solutions known to them (RCV, assemblies, technocratic governance, lobbying) and see that each gives single-digit percentage improvements
Their conclusion: "the machine is broken, repair is impossible, replacement is needed"

Technofascism for them is not a desired utopia but the least bad way out.

This critically changes the strategy of working with them. They are neither idiots nor ideologues — they are pragmatists who drew a grim conclusion from the available information.

If they are shown a working solution for repairing democracy, they will abandon technofascism. Not because it is ideologically repugnant to them, but because technofascism for a pragmatist is a risky, expensive, ethically complicated, poorly scalable path.

AB-EXIT represents exactly the type of solution that can change their analysis. It is a structural proposal with a quantitative effect of the order of 20–40 % (see §23), not more tactical single-digit percentages.

Therefore B2 are not opponents of AB-EXIT. They share our diagnosis of the problem. We differ in the prescription: they propose replacing the system, we propose a structural upgrade. This means B2 is a convertible group, not adversaries.

31.5. The triple-outreach strategy¶

— Direction A — the old institutional elite. Long academic work through Brookings, Foreign Affairs. Goal — removal of active resistance. A year or two of work.

— Direction B1 — constructive tech magnates. Fast direct work through podcasts, direct letters, Substack essays. Goal — to find one or two anchor supporters. Six months of work.

— Direction B2 — Dark Tech as a conversion target. A direct proposal: "You came to technofascism because you saw no working solution. Here is a working solution. Does this change your analysis?" Goal — not to make them active promoters but to stop their work on the technofascist side, move them to neutrality.

31.6. The subtle position towards Dark Tech¶

Diagnostic agreement with structural divergence in the prescription.

"We agree with Dark Tech that current democracy does not work in its existing form. We differ in the prescription. They believe the machine is beyond repair. We show that the machine can be repaired through a structural upgrade. This solution is more efficient by their own criteria: faster, cheaper, less risky."

This gives three effects: - Respect for their analysis of the problem - A concrete proposal of an alternative - An appeal to their own efficiency criteria

They do not have to accept anyone's ideology — they only need to recompute their solution of the optimisation problem.

Related sections: - §32 — The fragmentation of the tech elite (how to use the split for coordination) - §30 — The arsenal of the reasonable elites (the general picture) - §11 — The paradigm from duty to choice (for the emotional level) - §23 — Quantitative comparison (for the rational level)

Source: written in the claude.ai chat, session 31, as §97.9 in v6.55. The concept of B2 as "pragmatists, not ideologues" is the session's key strategic discovery. Moved to file 06 in v6.56_clean.