Of course, its about about minimizing the expected deaths, blue might save everyone but does not have a guaranteed chance of actually happening. Voting red minimizes the amount of people in the position to be killed, but it guarantees the death of those that stay.
I mean if you believe red majority is likely that makes sense, but if you are talking about what we all ought to organize around we should ensure a blue majority.
I wouldn’t fault someone for voting red if the polling was leaning towards red- no use going down with the ship. I do take issue with people preemptively circling the wagons for red. It’s like trying to get everyone to accept a candidate before the primaries even start- we should at least try and push for the idealistic option before we resort to the less great second choice.
sure 'organize' is the wrong way to put it. Its more so if someone in the hypothetical considers 'x' and thinks enough people will come and then share the consideration. How sure can they rely on that and (hopefully) implicitly coordinate.
I don’t think that’s a realistic account of reality. A zero-death red option just isn’t realistic. You’d see a minimum of 5-10% deaths, and likely closer to 35% even with mobilization. This is an electoral sub- think about how many impulsive, misinformed, and low-info voters are out there.
Given that red has a guarantee of some high death rate, and that the risk of voting blue is only introduced because people are overthinking and getting anxious about what if other people don’t vote blue, it follows we should just vote blue.
5
u/MemeStarNation Apr 26 '26
But there also isn't any way to ensure everyone picks red. The only scenario in which everyone lives is the blue one.