Absolutely correct!   As I anticipated before I wrote part 1 of the AP essay, there isn't a requirement that large numbers of people die.  Rather, it merely needs to be clear that the AP system COULD kill them, if it came to that.  

One fallacious criticism of AP that I occasionally saw in the 1990s was, more or less:  'Assassinations occur.  they don't accomplish anything'.

My answer:  Ordinary, 'traditional' assassinations tend to be done by 'lone nuts'.  They are rather rare.  The issue is, once one assassination occurs, how likely is it that a second assassination follows promptly?  Put another way, how confident is the replacement government employee that he won't be targeted when he replaces the first target?   With the "lone nut" model, that employee can feel very safe.  With the AP model, he won't feel safe.  

You also said,  

    "Another good thing about this way it is that if some politicians have some money shared on their heads, everyone of them will be incentived to kill himself the others, his colleagues, by hoping to lower the money on his own head."

Very possible!  I long recognized that one advantage of offering a bounty to EVERYBODY, rather than one or a tiny number of potential assassins, is that the target doesn't know from where the blow will be struck.  The advantage will generally be to people who have access to the target, as a part of ordinary life or their jobs.  

                   Jim Bell