Skip to content

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.

35. Route B: Launch through a Parliamentary Scandal and a Private Referendum for Countries without a Right of Citizen Initiative

Chapter: 07 File version: v1 Date: 2026-06-11 Source: v6.53 §84

84.1. Purpose of the section

Section 68 describes the route for launching AB-EXIT through a citizens-initiated statute — submitting the initiative directly to a referendum, bypassing parliament. This route works in the USA (several states with the right of initiative), Switzerland, Italy. But most of the world — Poland, Hungary, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Japan, Russia, and dozens of other countries — has no right of citizens-initiated statute. Citizens there physically cannot put a question to a referendum apart from parliament.

This is a serious hole in the launch route, correctly identified by any competent critic with experience in Eastern Europe (Anne Applebaum's typical position). This section closes the hole through an alternative mechanism that does not require an institutional right of initiative.

84.2. The mechanism of Route B

The alternative route consists of two parallel actions that reinforce each other:

First — an underdog politician publicly brings AB-EXIT onto the parliamentary agenda. This requires only one deputy willing to introduce a bill. The deputy may be from any faction, including marginal or new parties. The goal here is not to pass the law (the probability is close to zero in autocratising systems) but to create public discussion and a media event. Introducing a bill is a public act that the media cannot ignore completely.

Second — a private referendum is held in parallel. This is not an election, not a legal act, but a mass verified poll organised by civil society. It can be held through a special app with identity verification, through signature campaigns with notarial certification, through fixed voting points organised in public spaces. Such a referendum has no legal force, but its political force is enormous — it shows the real distribution of citizens' opinions, which cannot be disputed.

These two actions work together. Parliament ignores the bill? The private referendum shows mass support, and parliament's disregard becomes a scandal. The private referendum is declared a fake? The deputy in parliament publicly defends it and demands an official vote. Each action strengthens the other.

84.3. Four options for the authorities' reaction and why each is a loser

Parliament and the executive face a choice among four options, and in each they lose legitimacy.

Option 1 — keep silent and ignore. An attempt to show that the question is not serious. But as soon as the private referendum has gathered a significant number of signatures or shows mass support — silence becomes a weapon against parliament itself. "They don't even react to a million citizens who demanded a discussion." This is ideal fuel for the underdog's campaign. Every day of silence strengthens his position.

Option 2 — ridicule and reject. "It's populism, it's utopia, it's unrealisable." Here the authorities fall into a trap. If you call a proposal of a million citizens "utopia", you are calling them fools. And they are a mobilised electorate that will remember this. Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" precedent in 2016 showed that this mistake can be decisive.

Additionally, in rejecting, parliament must EXPLAIN why. Any substantive explanation draws it into a debate on the merits of AB-EXIT, where the authorities have no arguments (section 76 — three answers to critics makes their position a foregone loss). Any NON-substantive explanation humiliates a million supporters.

Option 3 — ban the private referendum legally. The most interesting scenario, because it exposes a fundamental contradiction. A private referendum is simply a poll. It is a form of freedom of speech, association and assembly. To ban it, one must pass a law forbidding citizens to learn each other's opinion. That is legislatively impossible in any country claiming to be a democracy.

An authority that tries to do this instantly becomes obviously authoritarian in the eyes of the international community. Poland, Germany, France cannot do it because of the European Court of Human Rights, the EU, NATO, the international press. Any attempt at a ban becomes the most powerful proof that AB-EXIT threatens not democracy but specifically THEIR power.

Even in more autocratic systems (Russia, Hungary, Turkey) a complete ban is impossible — organisers can be persecuted, but a poll through an encrypted app with international verification is technically impossible to stop. And every persecution becomes an international scandal legitimising AB-EXIT beyond the country's borders.

Option 4 — discuss it seriously in parliament. Paradoxically the best option for the authorities — but they rarely choose it. Serious discussion legitimises AB-EXIT as an idea, but allows the process to be stretched through commissions, expert reviews, hearings for years. Over that time the idea may lose momentum.

But parliamentary systems organically resist any serious reform that threatens the composition of parliament itself. Deputies know that AB-EXIT will remove their base — the apathetic voters. They choose options 1, 2 or 3 and lose in each.

Thus the authorities have no winning reaction strategy. This is the classic political trap for an autocratising system.

84.4. Historical precedents for the success of such a mechanism

Route B is not theoretical — it is an empirically working mechanism that has been used many times in history to create irremovable pressure on power.

Sunflower Movement (Taiwan, 2014). 500,000 people on the streets + even more online, occupation of parliament for 24 days on live stream. The authorities could neither ignore, nor ban, nor negotiate. Result — abandonment of the imposed trade agreement with the PRC, legitimisation of g0v as a civic technology movement. Taiwanese democracy was strengthened by this event.

Solidarność (Poland, 1980–1989). A trade union as a parallel power structure. The government of the People's Republic could not recognise it (that would be admitting the defeat of communism), could not destroy it (repression created an international scandal), could not negotiate (any concession strengthened Solidarność). Result — the Round Table of 1989, the transition to democracy.

Hong Kong (2019). 2 million people on the streets in a city of 7 million. The "be water" principle — fluid, decentralised mobilisation. Beijing's authority lost legitimacy globally even when it suppressed the movement by force. Hong Kong as a financial centre lost decades of development.

Belarus (2020). Hundreds of thousands on the streets after the falsification of the election. Lukashenko kept power but lost legitimacy irreversibly. Belarus now exists only by Russian patronage; any change of circumstances will lead to a change of regime.

Not all these movements led immediately to regime change. But all of them created irremovable pressure, changed the balance of forces, and in the long run work against autocratising power. AB-EXIT through Route B uses the same class of mechanisms.

84.5. Technical requirements for a private referendum

For a private referendum to carry political weight it must be verifiable. This means several technical requirements:

— Identity verification of voters. Not an anonymous poll "on the internet" but confirmed participation of real citizens. Technically solved through bank identification, notarial certification of signatures, physical voting points with document checks.

— Protection against double voting. Each citizen may vote only once. Solved through a distributed ledger (section 78 — the technical architecture works here too).

— Public verification of results. Anyone can check the totals independently. Open code, open data, international observers.

— Protection against hacking and substitution. Cryptographic protection of the voting data. This is an established industry using the same approaches as financial blockchain systems.

All these requirements are achievable with existing technologies. The specific implementation is a task for working groups at the implementation stage (section 78.9 — parameters for technical teams).

A private referendum cannot be banned cleanly, because it rests on three fundamental rights protected in every democracy and most authoritarian systems:

— Freedom of speech. The right of citizens to express their opinion on political questions. — Freedom of association. The right to unite for collective action. — Freedom of assembly. The right to hold public events.

A poll of citizens on a political question is a direct exercise of these three rights. Any ban on a poll violates all three at once. This creates a legal and moral protection that an authoritarian power finds hard to circumvent without openly violating its own constitution.

Additionally — a private referendum does not claim legal force. It is a poll, not an election. It requires no state registration, issues no binding decisions, does not replace institutions. It is simply a way to learn citizens' opinion. A ban on such a poll cannot be justified by the protection of institutions — on the contrary, a ban shows that the authorities fear citizens' opinion.

84.7. Where this works especially well and where it is harder

Where Route B works well:

— Democracies with problems (Poland under PiS, Hungary under Orbán, Turkey). Power is autocratising, but the institutional forms of democracy are preserved. Route B uses these forms against the power itself. Addition of 28.09.2026: in Hungary the form of a private referendum was legitimised by Orbán himself — the "national consultations", postal questionnaires to millions of citizens since 2010, whose results the government declares the will of the people and uses as the basis for laws. The protocol's question is asked in the same form; the power cannot call it illegitimate, and Art. 8(3) of the Fundamental Law (the ban on budget referendums) does not extend to a survey (039, the Orbán case).

— Mature parliamentary democracies (Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, Australia). Here resistance will be softer (option 4 is more likely), but the media channel is wider too; pressure can be created through major media.

— Democracies with participation problems (Italy, Spain, Brazil). Route B mobilises precisely those who are disappointed, which increases the chances of success.

Where Route B is harder:

— Closed authoritarian systems (Russia, China, Iran). Technically it is harder to hold a private referendum; organisers face repression. But even here work is possible through the diaspora and international organisation of verified polls.

— Small autocracies under patronage (Belarus, Venezuela, the Central Asian regimes). Depends on the readiness of the patron (Russia, Cuba) to support repression. In moments of the patron's weakening, windows for launch are possible.

— Hybrid regimes (Serbia, Hong Kong before 2020, Turkey). Depends on the specific circumstances and rhetoric of the moment.

After adding this section the project has TWO parallel launch routes:

Route A (section 68): citizens-initiated statute. Applicable in the USA (several states), Switzerland, Italy. A direct bypass of parliament through citizen initiative. Launch route — Oregon 2028 as the first real window.

Route B (section 84): parliamentary scandal plus private referendum. Applicable in most of the remaining democracies and hybrid systems of the world. An attack on parliament from outside through public pressure. Launch route — any country with a ready underdog politician and a working civil society.

These routes do not compete; they complement each other. Success in one country through either route creates a precedent for spread through the other route in other countries. If Oregon passes through Route A, that creates legitimisation for Poland through Route B, and so on.

Paradoxically, Route B may prove more effective than Route A in the long run, because it works through creating mass public support that survives even without a legal victory. The Oregon referendum is a binary event (won or lost). The Polish parliamentary scandal with a private referendum is a multi-year process that changes political culture even if the specific law is not passed at once.

84.9. Summary

AB-EXIT is not tied to one type of political system. It has two independent launch routes for two different classes of countries. This removes the last structural limitation on the concept's applicability and makes it universally workable for the whole world except the most closed authoritarian systems (where no reform is possible without regime change for other reasons).

This is a critical expansion of the project. After adding this section AB-EXIT stops being "a reform for the USA via Oregon" and becomes "a global concept with two adaptable implementation routes".