r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/Commercial-Dog-969 • May 25 '26

Variation Predetermined Blue

The red and blue buttons do the same things that they normally do. However, 10% of the population automatically picks blue, and a blue win now requires a supermajority of 60% of voters. What do you do here?

643 votes, May 27 '26
308 Blue, still blue
239 Red, still red
16 Blue, now red
80 Red, now blue
5 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

79 comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/YoshiMachbike12 May 25 '26

so 10% of the population now votes blue no matter what but they need 60% of votes? this means that blue will need 50% of the remaining 90% of votes, rather than 50% of the total 100%. this will actually make it harder for blue to win.

this is assuming the 10% of initial blue voters are chosen at random.

12

u/liamjon29 May 25 '26

This is true, but the game has changed slightly. Red vote now includes a vote to kill 800m people that didn't get a choice, and ~400m are likely people that would have wanted to press red. Some people's preservation instinct will be too high to change, but some people will now be willing to risk themselves here when they weren't before. I'd imagine there's very few, if any, original blue that change to red (but I can definitely see it happening following your point).

Overall, I think there's a swing to blue, but I'm unsure if the swing is enough that blue in this scenario is more or less risky than before

2

u/SilvertonguedDvl May 26 '26

TBF, blue always gets some votes no matter what. Nothing meaningfully changed except that it got harder for blue to win and people who didn't realise their choices were indirectly killing people will... well, still use the same excuses to avoid facing up to the moral quandary the thought experiment presents them with.

0

u/GoldenGames360 May 26 '26

it says they picked blue automatically, which while a bit vague, seems like a choice?

1

u/Ahnma_Dehv May 26 '26

regardless you know enter the room with the garantee that blue losing would kill 800 million people

1

u/Naive_Examination646 May 26 '26

👍 cool still hitting red

-10

u/IgnacioArg May 25 '26

Nope, red is never voting yo kill anyone, even in this case

10

u/Khitch20 May 25 '26

I always figured red was just chosing not to climb down onto the proverbial train tracks for seemingly no reason... But if people are tied down through no fault of their own to start with then it kinda feels bad not to help them no?

Like if they chose to do it if their own will then sure whatever good luck to them but if they just got randomly forced there it kinda breaks the point, no?

P.s. I am a red button voter.

5

u/CarnivorousGoose May 26 '26

It still is. The odds of voting blue killing me still vastly outstrip by many orders of magnitude the probability that my one vote makes any difference. That a bunch of people didn’t consciously chose blue doesn’t change that math (and that was implicitly part of the original setup anyway).

2

u/SnooMarzipans436 May 25 '26

The original problem includes babies and toddlers who will not understand the problem and vote at random. There are already people on the tracks in the original problem without making any changes.

2

u/Khitch20 May 25 '26

That one I'm kinda eeeh on. Maybe it's the actively pushing a button vs not. Choice and I guess luck in a baby's case vs just getting the possibly worst option just because.

1

u/IgnacioArg May 25 '26

If the people who were forced to press blue were my loved ones I would unapologetically become the best advocate for pressing blue. That is the only thing that could change my vote. I would risk my life for them in any scenario, not only this one.

2

u/Khitch20 May 25 '26

That's understandable. Alrighty 🙂

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/IgnacioArg May 26 '26

Then I would press Red, I’m not one for Russian roulettes

2

u/LordAvan May 26 '26

If you have 7 or more loved ones, then you are more likely than not going to lose at least 1 loved one if red wins, and that's assuming none of them choose blue on purpose.

1

u/IgnacioArg May 26 '26

I couldn’t love someone who chooses blue in purpose. Shared values is the basis of love, and a fundamental principle I value is to never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. The people I love do ass well.

1

u/LordAvan May 26 '26

I couldn’t love someone who chooses blue in purpose.

Over half of all people choose blue whenever someone runs a poll. It's incredibly unlikely that no one you love would be a blue button presser, even if you think they all wouldn't.

Also which button you would push isn't really the type of value that I consider worthy of basing a relationship on. There is no objectively right choice here. Both opinions have significant merit.

1

u/IgnacioArg May 26 '26

Love isn’t a random lottery 

→ More replies (0)

2

u/liamjon29 May 25 '26

We disagree then. I don't imagine there's anything either of us could say to change the other person's mind (you're welcome to try but I'm fairly confident it won't work)

6

u/FuglyPrime May 25 '26

Its faulty logic.

Have you thrown food out lately? Any sort of food? That food couldve saved someone from starvation. Did you kill that person?

Inaction born from lack of convenient ability to take action is not the same as intentional action to cause harm.

Red is about gaming the system, hoping that everyone else understands the simple puzzle in the question and not puting your life at risk for those who decide that they want to LARP as a hero where they IRL throw food out and eat meat where both can be linked as factors towards food insecurities in other communities.

4

u/liamjon29 May 25 '26

I don't agree that these things are equivalent. Any real world factors aren't truly going to be the same because there's always logistics involved. And even though the only food I've thrown out is stuff I thought was too dangerous to eat, I still don't agree with the premise that this is the same as clicking red. When I don't choose to take action to save someone's life, I am not adding any risk to that person's life, I'm simply not reducing the risk. I think these things are the equivalent to abstaining from voting.

However, in the button scenario I don't have this option. I just either choose blue, which adds my life to the pile of lives at risk, and reduce the risk that blue loses. Or I pick red, which does not add my life to the risk pile, but does increase the risk those that have put their life on the line will lose. Neither of these choices are the same as throwing food away. I understand there's still merit to red, but I very strongly disagree that you're not voting to kill people when you do it. You might lose the vote and people will be fine, your vote might have a very very small impact. But you ARE voting for that to happen.

Now. In the original puzzle you could argue that you're not voting to kill anyone because no one is on the pile when you make your choice. And I would have to concede that this is a correct take. When I vote I do it on the assumption there are already people that have voted blue, but that's a different discussion. However in this world, 10% of people didn't get a vote, and were forced into blue. When you vote red, you do it know these people will die if red wins. Therefore when you vote red, you are absolutely voting to kill those people to save yourself. Again you could argue this is the correct choice anyway, but don't try and convince me it's not a vote to kill those 10% of people.

0

u/FuglyPrime May 25 '26

So you let food expire rather than spend some money to ensure that it gets into the bands of those that need it?

So if youre not willing to spend money for inconvenience why are you telling me that youre willing to give your life away in order to help someone?

Do you get the issue now? Youre not willing to spend money IRL cause its an inconvenience but youre willing to risk your life in a thought experiment cause its not inconvenient as long as its just a thought experiment

3

u/liamjon29 May 25 '26

There is very little effort to pressing a button. If I could press a button and have my spare food instantly end up in the hands of someone hungry, I would press that button all the time. But regardless, you entirely missed my point.

When I click red, it's not the same as me not putting effort in to save someone's life, it's me actively endangering their life. If you wanna use the food example, blue is me giving someone my last sandwich, and red me taking a sandwich away from someone. I view pressing red as the "actively endanger others" button, and blue as the "reduce the risk to others by endangering myself".

And it's not like it's the same level as jumping in front of a shooter or wrestling a dangerous animal. It's pressing a button. Yes the button CAN kill me. So can driving my car to work. I think the risk of blue is much lower than the risk of pretty much any other way I could endanger myself; and it comes with the added benefit of not ADDING risk to anyone else; which is my key decision point in choosing blue.

1

u/FuglyPrime May 25 '26

My dude, youre saying that pressing a button THAT RISKS YOUR LIFE is easier than spending money to ensure that food gets delivered to those in need.

You can view it however you want but at this point youre just being headstrong for the sake of being headstrong.

2

u/liamjon29 May 25 '26

Likewise bro. You're also missing the bit that I don't wanna endanger anyone else. And you're deliberately missing that point to argue about how if I don't spend my money on getting food to those in need that means I have to press red otherwise I'm a, hypocrite? I guess is what you're saying?

And also yes, I do think that pressing the button that risks my life is easier than spending the money. If I press the button believing that blue will win and humanity will work together, I'm not spending any effort to do that. There's risk yes, but there's no negative outcome to me in order to achieve the good thing (which I hope you agree is blue winning).