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.
Meta Questions¶
About the document itself, the AI stress test, the $10,000 question and the project's status. General rules of the base — in the introduction.
Q-META-001 · What does "449+ rounds, 0 contradictions" mean? Is that proof?¶
Status: 🔁 contested Who asks: academics, journalists, sceptics — the first thing they ask Source in the book: README, §43 "Gemini's capitulation", index of transcripts Related: Q-META-002, Q-META-003
Answer. It is not proof of truth, and the book does not claim that. ChatGPT's formulation after the formal stress test is exact: within the model's stated assumptions no internal logical contradiction was found that would collapse the mechanism on its own foundations. That is, what was tested was internal consistency, not correspondence to reality. Six architectures (Claude, Gemini, Grok, Qwen, DeepSeek, ChatGPT), 10 sessions, transcripts published in full in a court-record format.
Weak point of the answer. LLMs are poorly suited to the role of adversary: they tend to agree with an insistent interlocutor, and §45 item 68.10 itself records the limit of LLM adversarial assessment — on legal questions the third round exposed risks absent from the first two. "No model broke it" is an argument about the quality of the question no more than about the quality of the opponent. Live academic peer review is not replaced by those 449 rounds.
Q-META-002 · What exactly is the $10,000 question and why can it not be answered?¶
Status: ✅ answered Who asks: everyone Source in the book: ABEXIT_Question_v4.3 Related: Q-META-001, Q-LEG-001
Answer. The formulation: if 48 % already do not vote — for free — and the state already pays parties for the votes they receive, why is it criminal to pay a citizen for an honest "I do not want to participate", when all his other rights remain?
Ten logical filters are attached to the question: an answer counts only if it passes all of them. The $10,000 prize is announced publicly and has not been paid.
Weak point of the answer. A prize with filters that the author himself formulates and judges is a rhetorical construction, not open verification. A strong answer can be rejected as "failing filter N". For the question to work as a scientific wager, the judging must be external.
Q-META-003 · What is the document's status: academic work, manifesto or draft law?¶
Status: ✅ answered Who asks: academics, editors, legislators Source in the book: index, §49 "The legal charter", LICENSE Related: Q-META-001
Answer. All three layers are present and separated by part. Parts I–III are the analytical and philosophical layer. Part IV is applied: §49 carries the construction through to the text of a charter. Parts I–V together are published as a book (v6.57) at docs.ab-exit.com. The licence is dual, on the Torvalds model: free for citizens, activists and NGOs, paid for commercial use.
Weak point of the answer. The mixing of genres hurts reception: an academic sees a manifesto and does not review it; a legislator sees philosophy and does not take it up. A separate academic digest for peer review has not been extracted.
Q-META-004 · Why this Q&A base, if there is a book?¶
Status: ✅ answered Who asks: contributors Source in the book: introduction to the base Related: —
Answer. The book answers at length and linearly, while objections arrive pointwise and repeat. The base is an entry index: "this question has come up, here is the short answer, here is where to read in detail". Its second purpose is an honest account of open places: the field "weak point of the answer" is mandatory in every entry, and status 🟡 means an acknowledged question without an answer. An open question recorded in the base is more useful than an absent one.
Weak point of the answer. The base lives only if it is replenished. If new objections are worked through in correspondence and do not land here, it will go stale and become harmful — creating the impression that everything has been accounted for.