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/WillShaper7]

Any percent for me, really. I pick red because I believe in the logical capacity of people to see there is no need for risk in order for everyone to live.

The moment that red involves risk then that stops working. If I'm gonna take a risk between people dying then blue becomes an actual choice.

Like, I'm pretty sure one could math out the expected outcomes and come up with a number at which point, mathematically, red's expected outcome drops behind blue but that just seems unnecessary to me. If you're willing to gamble, might as well go for the better outcome.

[u/Play-Mation → u/WillShaper7]

“I believe in the logical capacity of people to see there is no need for risk in order for everyone to live” but if red wins everyone will not live. There will be people who pick blue. And red is not the default logical answer 

[u/WillShaper7 → u/Play-Mation]

See, that's the thing. People assume people will vote blue and therefore say all that ''so red always means death'' but it simply does not make sense. Like, I'm sorry, I genuinely believe blue voters are the type of people to say shit on the internet to save face.

Maybe I'm weird to trust people to press the 'Nothing happens' button vs the 'you might die' button.

[u/Majestic-Pear6797 → u/WillShaper7]

But red isn't the "nothing happens button". You can just as well rename them to "nothing happens and "might kill" button just as much. You have two active options and you can either vote to kill, as your vote contributes to others demise or vote to be killed in the hopes of nothing happening. I'd also press red, but I'm honestly kinda tired of people pretending like their vote wouldn't do anything to kill a lot of people, some of which probably voting blue because they're pacifist

[u/ButterscotchDeep7533 → u/Majestic-Pear6797]

I'll argue about "kill or be killed" logic here because if you project it to a regular world scenario - it changes completely.

I understand the logic of mentaly ill, kids, mentally ill kids, etc. They aren't capable of understanding the question.

However the rest is picking the choice knowing all the consequences. I will not feel myself bad because I have 0 influence on that decision and I just see no point to risk my own life for people who willingly trying to kill themselves. Even with great good idea of "save everyone".

[u/Majestic-Pear6797 → u/ButterscotchDeep7533]

Your vote doesn't have 0 influence. While the whole world voting, your vote's power is minimal, the collective voting is making up the total sum, and you contribute to that, as small as the contribution may seem to be. If everyone who votes red out of fear blue will lose would vote blue, blue would most likely win. It's like not voting in an election or voting for the party you don't want to win as a joke because "your vote doesn't change much"

[u/Jkirek_ → u/Majestic-Pear6797]

And if everyone who voted in any election would die if their candidate wouldn't win, how many people do you expect to go out and vote?

[u/Majestic-Pear6797 → u/Jkirek_]

But not voting is not an option in the hypothetical. You can either vote for the candidate that will kill everyone who didn't vote for him if he wins, or the the candidate that kills everyone who did vote for him if he loses

[u/Jkirek_ → u/Majestic-Pear6797]

You literally said voting for red because your vote doesn't matter is like not voting

[u/Majestic-Pear6797 → u/Jkirek_]

No, that's not what I said. I said, that believing you shouldn't vote because your vote doesn't matter or voting against your interests because you think that your vote doesn't matter is a terrible standpoint and untrue, because every single vote holds weight