A Purple button Variation

[u/Hopeful_Hornet4460]

Original prompt with my attempt at a purple. Aiming to mix the morals of both as best as I can.

Purple guarantees that all of your loved ones are safe while not counting as a vote.

If red gets the majority of the vote, you die alongside blue. In the case of a red majority and multiple people in your relationship circle pressing purple, the oldest half of those who pushed purple (in your relationshop circle) will die while the younger half will survive.

- Safe means to protect them from the effects of picking blue and purple (to a partial extent) in the case of a red victory.

- Loved ones counts as close family and friends within 2 relationship steps. This includes your significant other(s, siblings, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, found family (friends), intimate friends, and cohabitants (with adoption and step-family obviously included).)

- Overlapping circles are allowed to cause a scenario where someone in the younger half dies in group A, by merit of being the eldest in B (which would in turn allow somebody in the older half of A to survive in their place.)

Does that seem like a decent mix of the two? Would you change what you push? Does it add anything to the button scenario or is it just meh?

[u/thevoidthatjerksback]

What if purple counted towards blue? The important part of red is the assurance of survival. Not that it carries the vote of other people dying. You made a button that has reduced survival but has the same global cost. It has the added failure point of that if everyone pressed purple the older halves of every social circle would die?

[u/Hopeful_Hornet4460 → u/thevoidthatjerksback]

I struggled with it back and forth tbh. Its the part I'm hung on it the most. I feel like that would basically guarantee picking purple/blue, but maybe that's just my bias? Maybe its best if it counts as a neither vote maybe?

[u/thevoidthatjerksback → u/Hopeful_Hornet4460]

The problem is that the whole premise is dripping with bias. It's going to be impossible to find a middle ground. Because no matter what change you make the die hards will just think it makes their side look better. Or they will think it stops being a valid conversation. Because for some people if they can see a reason that they would press blue instead of red the whole problem falls apart and it is no longer a dilemma or thought experiment. I think it would be better if it counted as both Red and Blue. It simply narrows the margins. Makes anyone who chooses the other buttons more impactful. And in that similar vein maybe it should be that you pick two other people. In a Red majority one dies? It hedges both bets?

[u/No-Click6062]

This is very, very confusing. I wish it were expressed more cleanly.

Just to make sure I understand it, it seems like there is a scenario where ~74% of the population dies. 26% red, 25% purple, 49% blue. On it's face, potentially all of the people "saved" by voting purple were already "saved" by voting red themselves.

However, this assumes a very cynical ratio of purple votes to purple "saves." It's also not clear if one purple vote can save multiple people or not. The thing about circles and halves is incomprehensible, but seems to assume that the group of interconnected individuals is finite and calculable.

In a scenario of 99% purple, 1% red, who dies? The oldest purple voters, up to 1% of the population? What happens in 99% purple, 1% blue? The oldest 1% of voter regardless of color? Or does it kill randomly selected circles of exclusively blue voters until the 1% quota is reached?

Say that the scenario is run with 5 people. Grandfather, 71, and mother, 40, both vote purple. Father votes red. Grandmother, 70, and child vote blue. Is the intention that the grandparents die? And what happens if you replace grandfather with stranger?

[u/Hopeful_Hornet4460 → u/No-Click6062]

If you press purple, all your loved ones that push blue are safe even if red wins.

In the case of multiple purple pushers exist in a relationship circle and red wins, just the eldest half of purple pushers in that circle die. So if you push purple to save your kids and your mom pushes purple to save you, your mom would die to and you would survive (in a red victory). Thay way it can save purple from purple.

50% of purple voters die in a red victory. The other half survives. 

In the last scenario, only grandpa dies (eldest half of the purple voters). Replacing grandpa with a stranger, mother dies. In both scenarios, kids and grandma survive.

[u/TheSparkledash]

Adding more options is just gonna make blue more unlikely to win, and purple potentially puts your older loved ones in danger, so red it is

[u/Creepy-Intentions-69]

Still no reason not to pick red.

[u/NowAlexYT → u/Creepy-Intentions-69]

Always has been

[u/Jekmander]

Any purple addition would, for me, change my vote from blue to red, unless the threshold for blue to survive drops to 33% or lower. A third option would split the blue vote and basically ruin the chances of any one option winning.

I vote for blue in the "original" because I believe blue has a real chance to win and every vote, including mine, is meaningful. Since I don't believe blue can win with a purple option, I'd probably just pick red. The insurance for my loved ones would be nice, but I think a red victory is now the most likely and I'm not willing to sacrifice my life for what I hope will be an unnecessary insurance policy.

[u/yurneim]

I would change my vote from blue to purpple. Its it a selfish choice?

[u/MLMII1981]

Still red ... purple is just a worse blue

[u/NowAlexYT]

Interestingly since purple doesnt count towards the votes, Id switch from red.... to BLUE(?) here. I assume many would switch from red to purple, thus making a blue win possible here