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.

41. The One-Page Pitch for the Right Bearer (RU + EN)¶

Chapter: 08 File version: v1 Date: 2026-06-11 Source: v6.53 §71, §72

Correction of 01.10.2026. "$780", "1.5 %" and "a vote with triple weight" in this chapter are a worked example for the US written before the decisions of 30.09.2026. The current norm: the size of the payment is set as a percentage of the median income and approved by referendum; one ballot is one vote, there is no multiplier ("triple weight" is the arithmetic of a share: the more people exit, the larger the share each ballot cast makes up, equally for everyone who votes); the jurisdiction's budget pays under law, a candidate never pays; only a referendum introduces or changes the rule, an elected body cannot; numbers on election outcomes and words about inevitability in this chapter are estimates and theses, there has been no pilot (1d, 048m).

71.1. Purpose¶

This is not advertising and not a presentation for the broad public. It is a short text for ONE specific person — a politician recognised by the portrait of section 70. The goal is to let him understand three things in five minutes of reading: that AB-EXIT is his chance, that the route is real, and what specifically is needed from him.

Size — one page in each language. The 69 sections of the document exist as a safety net for subsequent conversations; the pitch does not replace them, it opens the door to them.

Tone — not selling, not ingratiating, not desperate. Quiet confidence. It should sound like a recognition of the addressee's situation, not propaganda for an idea. If it reaches the right person — he will recognise himself and respond; if the wrong one — it will pass by without consequences.

71.2. Russian version (for use by the organiser)¶

The Russian text of the pitch is in the Russian original of this section; it is the same text as 71.3 below, for a Russian-speaking addressee.

71.3. English version (for sending to a U.S. politician)¶

AB-EXIT — the final button for those who are right but losing under this system's rules

You know what needs to be done. You have the experience, the program, the understanding of what works and what would break this country. You're in a race where the polls have you behind — not because you're a weak candidate, but because your populist opponent promises what cannot be delivered, and the majority grabs the sweet. You've already accepted that you'll lose. You're running anyway, because not running would be a betrayal of yourself.

AB-EXIT is not a winning trick. It's a mechanism in which, for the first time in a century, the one who is right wins — not the one who shouts loudest.

How it works. Before each election, every citizen chooses between two options: — "I vote" — a regular ballot, but its weight is not diluted by those who opted out; — "I take the dividend" — a civic payment (~$780) from the state fund, and I don't vote this cycle. The right to vote is not removed, the choice remains entirely with the citizen, and after 4 years the decision can be reversed.

Why this works for you. The handout-voting electorate voluntarily exits for the dividend. What remains are those who understand the value of long-term solutions and bitter medicine. The working active citizen finally receives a vote that isn't drowned in apathy. This is not winning at any cost — this is restoring fairness to the system itself.

The path is real. Oregon 2028, a citizen-initiated statute narrowing the state's vote-bribery law (ORS 260.665) through explicit carve-out. The legal foundation is grounded in precedent: Foster v. Clark protects against pre-election content review, Bowman and McCranie confirm 10307(c) does not apply to purely local/state elections. Funding model — hybrid: anchor donor $3-5M (proven model: Draper on "Six Californias," Parker on Prop 64, Thiry on Colorado reforms) plus a broad small-donor base for narrative legitimacy.

What is asked of you. Become the public face of the initiative. That's it. Legal drafting, signature collection, media operations, donor outreach — supporting team. From you — biography, voice, and willingness to say out loud what you already know.

What you get in return. Not a guarantee of victory. A real shot. And the chance, should you lose honestly, to leave behind not "I tried within a broken system" but "I was the first to publicly propose what changes the system itself." That is a different category of loss.

If you recognize yourself in these lines — let's talk. 69 sections of work are ready for any question you have. If not — thank you for your attention, and apologies for the intrusion.

71.4. Recommendations for use¶

When to send. After a candidate matching the portrait (section 70) has been identified through acquaintance or a network. Not before — cold mailing from open databases gives zero response and dilutes the idea.

Through which channel. Best — personal hand-over through a mutual acquaintance. Worse — an email from an acquaintance marked "read this from me personally". Worst — a cold email or DM. The pitch is short precisely so that it passes in five minutes of reading and is forwarded if necessary.

What to attach. Only the pitch itself in the required language. Do NOT attach to the first contact: the 69 sections of the document, a presentation, a video, separate studies. If the addressee gets interested — he will ask, and then you have depth for any question of his. Overload kills first contact.

What to expect. Silence is normal; most will pass by. One in ten with whom it resonates will respond quickly, within a day or two. Long indeterminate answers ("interesting, but...") are usually a polite refusal; do not press.

Where it will not work. The pitch is not intended for the broad public, the press, grant-makers, the academic community. For them other documents, another tone, another structure are needed. This text is for one specific person in one specific inner state, and outside that profile it does not work.

72.1. Purpose of the section¶

The section records quantitative models that until this point were only qualitative intuitions. This is the electoral mathematics of a mayoral race with AB-EXIT, a forecast of referendum support in Oregon, the structure of the new electorate after the apathetic leave, and the evolution of candidate types. All figures are expert estimates based on the known structure of the American electorate, not precise forecasts. Their value is in orders of magnitude and in ratios, not in tenths of a per cent.

72.2. The electoral mathematics of a mayoral race¶

Without AB-EXIT, a typical scenario:

Off-year turnout: ~20 % of registered voters. In a city of 100,000 voters, ~20,000 come to the polls.
The incumbent holds ~12,000–14,000 machine votes (party base + municipal contracts + unions).
An underdog with a standard programme collects 25–30 % of those who came = 5,000–6,000 votes.
Chance of victory: close to zero at low turnout. A political consultant will tell the candidate at once: "we'll lose beautifully for $150k, raise name recognition".

With AB-EXIT as the platform, the same city:

The message itself, "$780 or a tripled vote", pulls to the polls a third of those who usually do not come (of 80,000 — ~25,000 additional votes).
Part of the incumbent's base (~3,000) goes over to the underdog, seeing the long-term benefit and protection from populists.
Total turnout: 45,000 instead of 20,000.
The incumbent: shrinks to ~10,000.
The underdog: 5,000 (old base) + 25,000 (newly mobilised) = 30,000.
Result: ~66 % against ~33 %. A landslide victory.

The figures are approximate, but the order of magnitude is clear: AB-EXIT turns a foregone-loss race into a foregone-win race, widening the electoral base 2–3 times.

72.3. Forecast of referendum support in a state (Oregon, campaign start)¶

A speculative forecast at the start — before the party machines' massive counter-campaign begins:

[ For: ~40–45 % ] — [ Against: ~35–40 % ] — [ Undecided: ~15–20 % ]

Composition of the FOR group (~40–45 %):

Electoral apathetics and the burned: ~25–30 %. People who have not gone to the polls for years. For them AB-EXIT is a no-lose situation: "I don't vote anyway, and here they'll pay."
Libertarians and crypto enthusiasts: ~5–7 %. Ideological supporters of market mechanisms.
The protest working class: ~10 %. Will grab the $780 as real financial help, without going into the philosophy.

Composition of the AGAINST group (~35–40 %):

Ideological party activists: ~20 %. The core of both parties, for whom participation in the struggle is part of their identity.
The conservative middle class: ~15 %. Voting as a sacred duty; any link to money provokes moral rejection.

The breaking point: the 15–20 % undecided sway under the media artillery. Without a strong counter-narrative ("this is your fine on politicians for unkept promises") they may go to "Against" on the home straight. With the counter-narrative — support holds.

72.4. Structure of the electorate after the adoption of AB-EXIT¶

When the apathetic have taken the dividend and left, two groups remain at the polls in a ratio of ~2:1 in favour of the first:

Pragmatists (~25–30 % of the whole population, ~60–65 % of the remaining voters). The middle class, homeowners, businesspeople, engineers, taxpayers. For them "living well" = safe streets, low taxes, repaired roads, effective schools, no corruption. They refuse the $780 because the damage from a bad mayor to their wallet exceeds that sum. A dry mathematical calculation.

Ideologues (~10–15 % of the whole population, ~30–35 % of the remaining). A key correction compared with the initial intuition: these are NOT "fanatics" and NOT "crazies". Statistically they are often people with higher education, high income and a strong analytical apparatus. They can count. The difference from pragmatists is not in intellect but in the value system: for them certain principles have no monetary equivalent. These are Second Amendment defenders, eco-activists, principled citizens for whom a political principle is worth more than $780. They refuse the money not from stupidity but because "clean water / a right / family / safety" is priceless to them.

This analysis is critical for communication: AB-EXIT does not "remove idiots"; it separates those who really care (for any reason — calculation or principle) from those who do not care. This is not an intellectual filter; it is a motivation filter.

72.5. The evolution of candidate types after AB-EXIT¶

The old "politician-actor" type dies out: both remaining groups are intelligent, check figures and do not react to emotional manipulation. Three new viable types appear:

The Synthesiser Candidate. The most complex and victorious type. Joins a coalition of Pragmatists and Ideologues. With pragmatists he speaks the language of ROI and calculations ("green energy will cut the cost of a kilowatt by 12 % in 4 years"). With ideologues the language of values ("the same plan makes the state a leader in cutting the carbon footprint"). The programme looks like a corporation's business plan with a built-in ethical mission. Whoever can cross benefit with value takes 80 % of the remaining votes.

The Single-Issue Candidate (Hyper-Targeted). Previously a politician was obliged to have an opinion on everything, hence a blurred "nothing". Under AB-EXIT, with the increased weight of the remaining votes, pinpoint representation appears. For example, an urbanist candidate with the single programme "tram + bike lanes" collects the votes of pragmatists (not sitting in traffic) and eco-ideologues. The system has to reckon with him.

The death of black PR. A Pragmatist and an Ideologue cannot be frightened by cheap dirt — they check facts. They react to mud like an HR director at an interview: "show the calculations". 80 % of the budgets for negative mobilisation become useless. The money goes to think tanks, and the main weapon of debate is the ability to defend a project before an audience that understands macroeconomics better than the candidate.

72.6. Summary¶

AB-EXIT turns elections from a contest of beauty and loudness into a board meeting of a large responsible organisation. Candidates defend strategies before shareholder-Pragmatists and an ethics committee of Ideologues. Populism, manipulation and black PR have no place in this system — not because they were banned, but because there is nobody to sell them to.