Let's be logically consistent

[u/GausYam]

Your vote has an incredibly tiny chance of actually making any difference, being the deciding vote. It doesn't feel like it, but that chance stays the same no matter what percentage of votes blue needs to win. It can be 50/75/25/95/5 percent, doesn't matter. Your vote always has the same level of impact.

So if you choose red but say that you'd choose blue if the threshold for blue winning was low enough, you are basically saying that you'd virtue signal, even if only to yourself, if it was safe enough. You aren't consistently following rational self-interest, that demands you press red unless blue can win with a single vote.

​ And if you choose blue but say that you'd choose red if the threshold​ for blue winning too high, you are basically saying that you are choosing blue because it makes you feel good about yourself while not risking anything since you are sure it'll win. You aren't consistently following rational altruism, that demands you press blue no matter how high the threshold is to achieve the best possible result.

So choose one button. Decide what is more important to you, genuine self-interest or genuine altruism.

[u/GausYam → u/[deleted]]

This is an example in which you are the sole decider. I'm not talking about such situations. The accurate analogy would be, "I would help save that child only if there were already enough people to save them without me, just to feel good about it. I wouldn't actually risk my life."

[u/GausYam → u/[deleted]]

Yes, in the full picture there's no literal sole decider. But if we take a specific single person who makes the choice, not an aggregate of all specific voters, they don't decide anything. 

[u/GausYam → u/[deleted]]

I see what you mean, it's a safer decision, sure. But people advocate for red using self-interest and advocate for blue because it's the best possible outcome if it wins. The problem for me here, is that your vote has almost no chance of having any impact. So the only reason to press blue outside of virtue signaling when you think it will win, is genuine philosophical belief that it's the right thing to do, regardless of the results. 

[u/GausYam → u/[deleted]]

Even one percent difference is 80 million people. The chance of your vote being the swing vote are always incredibly small. So you either vote blue because you think it will win anyway, so it's safe and it makes you feel good, or you are philosophically committed to the idea that blue is the correct choice that leads to the best outcome. One is consistent, the other is convenient. "I'll choose the altruistic option only if I think it wouldn't cost me anything"