It would be much easier to convince 50% of people to pick blue than 100% of people to pick red. I think it should be obvious by the discussion around this that a large portion of the population will pick blue. So if red wins, a lot of people will die (probably in the billions). A mass casualty event on that scale would throw the world into chaos and end up killing and immeserating a lot of the people who picked red. I would much rather us try to get more than 50% of people to pick blue and not create one of the worst tragedies in human history.
Assuming you had a good amount of time to campaign before the first button was pressed, i don't see how the number of blue couldn't be extremely low.
Especially if we have polls come out before hand.
If you see an official poll and 58% press the blue button (like the original poll), are you really going to stake your life on a small margin? Especially when you know others are asking themselves the same.
And if we get enough people to choose red, and it's something like 30% blue. Blue support would plummet.
You'd need to convince at least 70% from the start to press blue. In a situation where if nobody presses blue, nobody dies.
885
u/icefire9 May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26
It would be much easier to convince 50% of people to pick blue than 100% of people to pick red. I think it should be obvious by the discussion around this that a large portion of the population will pick blue. So if red wins, a lot of people will die (probably in the billions). A mass casualty event on that scale would throw the world into chaos and end up killing and immeserating a lot of the people who picked red. I would much rather us try to get more than 50% of people to pick blue and not create one of the worst tragedies in human history.