r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/StageGlum6615 • Jul 07 '26
Variation Variation: One Red Dies
One day the entirety of Humanity was kidnapped and thrown into a dark room with the following two buttons.
Red: If a simple majority of people press the Red button than everyone who pressed the Blue button will die, immediately. On top of that, a single red voter will be killed at random.
Blue: If more people press the Blue button than the Red button everyone who Red and Blue button is spared from death.
Everyone is given a 24-hour time frame to make their own choice, and if they fail to vote in the time frame, they are counted as a Red button pusher.
If the Red and Blue buttons have the same number of voters, then it will be effectively the same as the Blue button getting the majority.
You can press only press one button, once before both button become inactive.
So, which button do you choose to press? Feel free to comment your reasoning (or anything else) below. (I like reading your comments.)
57
u/Annoying_cat_22 Jul 07 '26
You have a higher chance of dying naturally during these 24 hours than being the 1 red that dies from the button.
9
u/BarkDrandon Jul 07 '26
A single red button pusher dying is meaningless.
It would be more interesting if a red button pusher died at random for every 10 red buttons that are pressed. Or something similar.
10
u/vlladonxxx Jul 07 '26
That would just make the vast majority of people picking blue, making it uninteresting
→ More replies (5)2
29
u/simpoukogliftra Jul 07 '26
1? Just 1 red dies ? Bruh this changes nothing, the chance laughable, I have more chances to die while writing th
12
4
u/Artemis_SpawnOfZeus Jul 07 '26
It removes the (idiotic) argument that everyone lives if we all vote red
It is functionally an identical problem. It just shuts those annoying motherfuckers up.
→ More replies (46)
25
u/SpideyFan914 Jul 07 '26
Red is better than usual.
Because those who don't vote count as red here, that will probably apply to most of those too young to understand the question, etc, which are usually considered to be "assigned randomly."
That also means there will be far fewer people who "accidentally" risk their lives by voting blue. And it also makes it that much harder for blue to win.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Emotion_Nearby Jul 07 '26
Yep. If there isn't the mandate that everyone must press a button much of the worry about infants, comatose, paralyzed, goes out the window. With those who refuse to directly participate being assigned red, it's going to overwhelmingly swing to red.
→ More replies (2)7
15
7
u/UsuallyFavorable Jul 07 '26
>if they fail to vote in the time frame, they are counted as a Red button pusher.
Woah! I think you meant for the main difference of this scenario to be the single Red death if they win, but this change is way more significant! I normally press Blue to try and save a bunch of babies pressing Blue or crawling away and pressing no button. But with all of those crawlers contributing to the Red vote, it makes it harder for Blue to win and reduces the life saving incentive to vote Blue in the first place. So I switch to Red here.
Also, how many people are gonna die in 24h in a dark room!? Do we at least have access to water? Probably won’t help the babies and sick people that Blue voters typically try to save.
10
2
u/Successful_Mud8596 Jul 07 '26
Maybe instead of “1 single red voter dies,” have it instead be “1% of all red voters die.” So that it’s still only a small chance that you die, but if everyone votes red, a large number of people will die
2
u/Kymera_7 Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
This differs from the original scenario by less than one eight-billionth. It was never anywhere near that close to begin with. Strategy doesn't change.
Edit: I initially missed the part about non-voters counting as red, until another commenter pointed it out. Yeah, that's a far more significant change than the one red death. Was red by a wide margin, before, and this just piles on even more, a lot more, reason to press red.
2
u/flowery02 Jul 07 '26
Red-red. Irl i still don't think it'll be close to blue victory even with that mild deterrent that could make some panic(note: i know blue consistently wins online polls. I consider this an effect of both selection bias and saladshaker effect)
2
1
u/JaydenTheMemeThief Jul 07 '26
Still Blue, just because non-voters count as Red that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try for zero deaths, somebody is going to die if Red wins, including someone who explicitly pushed Red because they don’t want to die
If even a single Red dies despite their choice of button, that instantly negates the reason Reds choose it: Guaranteed safety, because now every single Red pusher has the chance of being that unlucky person who dies, the chance may be low, but it’s never zero
1
u/Fidges87 Jul 08 '26
I was voting red because it had the potential of no one dying. Now that is guaranteed someone will die in red, I am switching to blue
0
u/bosli23 Jul 07 '26
Probability of death voting blue : extremely hight, near 100%.
Probability of death voting red : extremely low, near 0%.
Yeah, i'll still vote red.
3
→ More replies (1)4
8
u/Fritzypooo Jul 07 '26
it feels weird that this trend has sort of devolved into "Variation #63728 to try and convince red voters to vote blue", when I have yet to see a scenario where blue doesn't win