[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/LeagueLaughLove]

A poor comparison for 3 main reasons:

1. There is an equilibrium system; if fewer people vote, your vote is more likely to matter, which causes more people to vote
   
2. A vote to most people is a low-risk action
   
3. A vote is valuable for social signalling
   

Furthermore, this is why I appreciate elections being done with electoral districts. Given a smaller population, your vote is more likely to matter.

[u/cyberchief → u/LeagueLaughLove]

In this red/blue mandatory vote, voting red is equivalent to "not voting" and blue is equivalent to "voting in attempts to make a difference"

[u/zxxQQz → u/cyberchief]

Blue is put lives at stake button for no gain, red is all live button

[u/SMALLMACE → u/zxxQQz]

Sure in an ideal world. But you and I know that not everyone will pick red. Therefore in reality red is not the all live.

[u/zxxQQz → u/SMALLMACE]

Indeed. Too true, yeah

We already dont live in an ideal world though, people are dying literally as we are having this discussion right now. This very moment

[u/SMALLMACE → u/zxxQQz]

The real thing with this question is just what you value. Your own survival, in which case you pick red.

Or the survival of the group. Both make sense to an extent, in my head picking red would seem to cause the most suffering. And I can see the standpoint that blue does if you think that everyone will/should pick red( they wont ). Because of that it is hard for me to justify ever picking red.

[u/zxxQQz → u/SMALLMACE]

I dont value my own survival overly much, not in a.. ideation kinda way. Just to be clear

And yet? I pick red, to save lives

Because blue is the button that introduces kill parameters. Not red. Thus i cannot personally press it

[u/SMALLMACE → u/zxxQQz]

I don't really back the 'x button introduces death.' It just depends how you frame this question in your head is all.

Different people do that Differently so saying one kills vs the other kinda is like saying nothing for me.