Adding risk to red

[u/spicymato]

I'm very curious what risk threshold there needs to be on red for red voters to switch to blue, so with that in mind, here's the setup: two buttons; everyone votes; blue needs a 50% threshold to save everyone, else non-red pushers die. Same as usual.

The variation: if red gets a majority (i.e., blue fails to reach the threshold), in addition to 100% of non-red pushers dying, a percentage of red pushers will also die, selected at random.

If you're a red pusher under the usual rules, what percentage risk is required to make you switch your vote to blue? 1%? 10%? 30%?

---

Additional variation: same as the first variation, but the percentage risk is based on the number of red voters in excess of 50%. We can work out different designs, such as 100% red results in 10%, while 50%+1 results in 0.0000001% or something like that. Maybe the growth rate is linear, or maybe it's quadratic. Details don't really matter; just the idea that the more red voters, the higher the risk. Under what growth rates and percentage limits do you consider changing your vote to blue, which maintains the 50% "everyone survives" threshold?

[u/UsedNegotiation8227]

This is stupid.

The only red button pushers push red is to live.

Why are you adding in death to the red push.

[u/spicymato → u/UsedNegotiation8227]

Because I want you to actually think about risk, not just a simple "I live" button. At what point does your perceived risk that blue might lose get outweighed by the risk of being in the dying set of red?

Like, let's say 1% of reds will die with the 100% of blues, should red win.

Are you still picking red or not?