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.
47. State-by-State Analysis of the USA — Prioritising States for the First Pilot¶
Chapter: 09 — 🇺🇸 US-Specific Implementation File version: v1 Date: 10 June 2026
47.1. Purpose of the section¶
§45 (the US legal base) and §46 (citizen-initiated statute — Oregon) establish that AB-EXIT is legally possible in the USA through a ballot initiative. This section gives an operational comparative analysis of specific states — where launch is easier, where harder, where practically impossible.
Launch in one right jurisdiction gives a working precedent that accelerates subsequent implementations many times over. Launch in the wrong one may lead to a local failure and reputational damage to the concept as a whole.
47.2. Oregon — priority No. 1¶
Oregon is the first candidate for the pilot launch of AB-EXIT in the USA. Reasons:
A simple ballot-initiative procedure. Form A is one of the most liberal in the USA. Requirements: 117,173 valid voter signatures (160,000 raw for a buffer) within 18 months. In California a comparable result requires 623,212 valid signatures; in Texas — 480,000.
A progressive electorate. Oregon consistently supports electoral reforms: - Mail-in voting (entirely by post) — Oregon first in the USA (1998) - Automatic Voter Registration — Oregon first in the USA (2016) - Vote-by-phone is under discussion
AB-EXIT fits well into this culture of electoral experimentation.
A transparent initiative procedure. The Secretary of State is obliged to consider an initiative within 60 days. The text is agreed through public comment. No geographic restrictions (unlike California).
Precedents of successful reforms via ballot. Medical marijuana 1998, recreational marijuana 2014, abolition of the death penalty 1964, paid sick leave 2007. A cultural and legal habit of citizen initiatives.
Size for a pilot. ~4.2 million residents, ~2.9 million voters. Large enough for statistically significant results. Small enough for a manageable campaign within a $10–20M budget (vs $100–200M in California).
Window — November 2028. Presidential election. Maximum turnout means the most representative pilot results. High media attention.
Risks: Oregon's electorate is to the left of the national median. Critics will say "Oregon is not America". Counter-argument: the empirical results on electoral dynamics (change in the electorate's composition, reduction of polarisation, widening of the planning horizon) are quantitatively measurable and transferable regardless of party composition.
47.3. California — a big budget, complex competition¶
California is a theoretically possible candidate, but harder than Oregon:
A high signature threshold. 623,212 valid signatures. A signature-collection campaign with a budget of $5–10M just at the qualification stage.
A complex political environment. California is an arena of constant ballot initiatives. One session may have 10–15 initiatives. Voters' attention is fragmented. AB-EXIT may get lost in the noise.
An expensive media campaign. The largest media market in the USA. A quality campaign requires $50–100M. The level of a large business community or a strong billionaire donor (Tim Draper, Sean Parker level).
Advantages for the second wave. If the pilot succeeds in Oregon, California becomes the natural second implementation. The Oregon precedent removes half the risks and gives a template for the California campaign.
Window — November 2030. Gubernatorial election. Media attention is high — California is a bellwether state.
47.4. Colorado — the Kent Thiry precedent and anti-gerrymandering¶
Colorado is an interesting candidate, especially after Kent Thiry's successful anti-gerrymandering campaign in 2018:
Kent Thiry as a model bearer. A business leader (former CEO of DaVita) with financial resources, who used them for a structural reform of the electoral system. Thiry spent $5M+ on signature collection and the campaign. The result — Amendments Y and Z, which created independent redistricting commissions. This is a direct precedent for an AB-EXIT bearer.
A simple procedure. About 124,000 signatures. Liberal ballot-initiative rules.
A progressive electorate on a reasonable scale. Colorado is less radically left than Oregon, more centrist. The pilot results are more transferable to "middle America".
Window — November 2028. Presidential election, like Oregon.
A strategic option — a parallel pilot. With a budget of $30–40M one could launch in parallel in Oregon and Colorado. Two independent empirical results in one electoral cycle + comparative data between a progressive and a centrist state.
47.5. Massachusetts — an educated electorate, a tradition of reform¶
The fourth candidate by priority:
An educated electorate. The highest share of residents with a university education in the USA. An audience able to understand AB-EXIT's mechanism design.
A tradition of reform. The first state with same-sex marriage (2004), universal health insurance (2006, the precedent for Obamacare). Structural innovations in politics/law are natural for the state.
A simple procedure. About 80,000 signatures. A low threshold.
Size for a pilot. ~7 million residents.
Window — November 2028 or 2030. Presidential or gubernatorial.
Risks: one of the bluest states. Critics may reject the results as "the effect of Massachusetts uniqueness". The counter-argument is analogous to Oregon's.
47.6. Less promising states¶
California, Oregon, Colorado, Massachusetts — the first wave. The rest:
Texas. A very high signature threshold. A political environment hostile to electoral reforms. The Republican majority in the legislature uses legal possibilities to block progressive initiatives. Unsuitable for the first pilot.
Florida. Similar to Texas + the politicisation of the Florida Supreme Court after 2020. Unsuitable.
New York. No right of citizen-initiated statute at state level. Only the parliamentary path through the legislature. Slower, depends on the political conjuncture in Albany. Unsuitable for a pilot.
Illinois. Similar to New York — a limited right of initiative.
Arizona, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico, Alaska, Maine. Have the ballot initiative, but a less active citizen-initiative scene. Possible as a second or third pilot after the success of Oregon/Colorado.
Michigan, Ohio. Politically swing states. A high risk that the initiative becomes a tool of party struggle. Unsuitable for the first pilot, which must be a structural experiment, not a party manoeuvre.
47.7. Strategy — concentration on Oregon with Colorado in reserve¶
Recommendation: concentrate all resources of the first AB-EXIT pilot in the USA on Oregon with the November 2028 election window.
Calendar: - Q4 2026 — Q1 2027: submission of the initiative text, legal review, optimisation of wording - Q2 2027 — Q3 2028: collection of 160,000 signatures (18 months) - Q4 2027 — Q4 2028: campaign and public communication ($10–20M budget) - November 2028: the ballot vote - 2029: the first implementation cycle (if the ballot passed) - 2030: the first empirical data
Reserve — Colorado. If unforeseen legal or political obstacles arise in Oregon — switch to Colorado as second priority. The calendar is practically identical.
A parallel strategy for the second wave: California, Massachusetts — window November 2030 or 2032, given a successful Oregon precedent.
47.8. A ready formulation for communication with the pilot team¶
"The first AB-EXIT pilot in the USA — Oregon, November 2028. The choice rests on three factors: a liberal ballot-initiative procedure (117k signatures vs 623k in California), a progressive electorate with a tradition of electoral experimentation (mail-in 1998, AVR 2016), a manageable campaign budget ($10–20M vs $100M+ in California). Reserve — Colorado with the same election window. California and Massachusetts — the second wave after the Oregon precedent, window 2030 or 2032. All other states are excluded from consideration for the first pilot for structural reasons (Texas and Florida hostile, New York has no initiative, Michigan and Ohio too politicised)."
Related sections: - §45 — The US legal base (Foster v. Clark, U.S. Term Limits) - §46 — Citizen-initiated statute, the Form A procedure - §41 — Portrait of the bearer (Kent Thiry as a model)
Source: written in the claude.ai chat, session 32. The concept of Oregon as the first pilot was developed in sessions 25–31.