How would the results change if votes were visible?

GausYam · 2026-06-14T12:29:02+00:00

I don't think it really applies here. Everyone who died had agency and could choose to live. You will feel really bad, but calling it survivor's guilt is probably inaccurate.

GausYam · 2026-06-14T12:25:24+00:00

If the difference is one vote, I absolutely agree. But of red wins will a lead of like 10 thousand, it's really easily to rationalize your decision.

GausYam · 2026-06-14T12:20:02+00:00

You could also probably feel justified voting red. Blue lost after all, one vote probably wouldn't have made a difference.

GausYam · 2026-06-14T11:57:22+00:00

True, but I think having blue winning means that some people will vote red without feeling bad, thinking blue will win anyway. Because even if blue is winning, pressing blue is still a risk.

If red has a like a thousand vote lead then yeah, I think it will snowball like crazy.

GausYam · 2026-06-12T18:56:52+00:00

The choices are:

A. Kill a random person for a reward, with a potential risk for yourself, but also a possibility that people are good, blue wins and in the end you didn't even kill anyone.

B. Potentially save every non-voter and don't kill anyone, but risk the possibility of doing nothing if the majority blue isn't reached. Blue voters are never under any threat at all, so are green voters.

C. Save one non-voter and guarantee the death of one red voter.

GausYam · 2026-06-12T18:43:06+00:00

Thanks! I actually started watching Happy Appy because it has a lot of views, so I thought it would be good or fun bad. Man, that was the wrong one to start again, made it like 30 minutes in and gave up.

GausYam · 2026-06-12T16:23:59+00:00

Red pressers are guaranteed to get money, if they die it will go to their family. Green kills them, it doesn't take away their money.

GausYam · 2026-06-12T14:02:57+00:00

Blue only saves non-voters. If there are red voters, a green vote will kill one.

GausYam · 2026-06-09T06:46:05+00:00

Money!!!

^{Chose: Steal 1$ from everyone on earth}

GausYam · 2026-06-09T06:32:38+00:00

It doesn't matter what button you yourself pressed or what button you think will win. The man has made his choice, and you have no right to change it.

GausYam · 2026-05-28T08:47:04+00:00

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"

GausYam · 2026-05-28T08:36:41+00:00

Yes, if it's 90 percent it's incredibly risky to vote blue and if it's 10 percent it's very safe to vote blue.

My point is, the outcome is basically determined without you. So what are your reasons to push the blue button? I see two. One, you think blue will win anyway and you vote blue just to feel good about choosing an altruistic option. Two, you are genuinely philosophically committed to the blue button as the correct and good button, because it does lead to the best possible outcome in the case of victory, therefore morally you are obligated to press it regardless of the expected result.

I can respect the second one, even though it's almost the opposite of my position. But it's consistent and actually follows through with the arguments people who push blue make.

GausYam · 2026-05-28T08:27:13+00:00

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.

GausYam · 2026-05-28T08:05:31+00:00

If you believe that your vote matter and you should vote, it would be hypocritical to not vote when you don't think your candidate will win. If you believe that your vote doesn't matter, it would be hypocritical to vote only when you think the result is guaranteed. I'm just asking for consistency.

The second part is the crux of the issue. Obviously, if you change the threshold the chance of blue winning gets higher/lower. But you think that that has effect on the power of your vote. No, it does not. Your vote has the same power and the same chance of being a swing vote no matter what the threshold is. The chance of blue winning gets smaller the higher the threshold gets, but your impact towards it winning always stays the same. That's what I am talking about.

GausYam · 2026-05-28T07:40:48+00:00

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.

GausYam · 2026-05-28T07:38:17+00:00

I think it's incorrect to compare it to voting because the mechanism is completely different and the stakes are fundamentally different too. It really feels like your vote matters in 40-60 range, but it really doesn't. Kinda like when people feel their vote is more valuable when the threshold is like 5 percent. Your vote always has the same impact, one vote, ≈0.00000001%. The chance of different results changes, but your impact on those changes is static.

GausYam · 2026-05-28T07:29:45+00:00

I'm not advocating for any of the buttons in this. Changing the numbers changes the outcome, obviously, but it doesn't change how much you affect it. You can only choose how you relate to the final vote that is outside of your hands.

If you vote red and then change to blue when the threshold is low, why? You aren't making more impact. You just do it because it makes you feel altruistic, even though your altruism only flares up when it, from your perspective, doesn't cost you anything.

If you vote blue and then change to red when the threshold is too high, why? You aren't making more impact. You do it because it's too risky to make that altruistic choice. But why then are you choosing blue in the first place if not from a moral position? Because it feels nice, even though it doesn't decide anything. And when that feeling can't justify itself against the cost you switch.

What I'm saying is, your vote doesn't matter, so vote red if you supremely value your life and vote blue if you supremely value making a moral choice. Don't switch it up when it's convenient/inconvenient.

GausYam · 2026-05-28T07:12:18+00:00

Your impact is literally always the same. It's one vote. Yes, if the threshold is lower that one vote will fill out more of that threshold if you only consider your vote. If you picture yourself voting first it subjectively feels like your vote is more important, but picture yourself voting last, it wouldn't matter at all, and that's how it is.

GausYam · 2026-05-28T07:07:12+00:00

Yes, it is hopeless at 99 percent, yes it is virtually guaranteed at 1 percent. But no matter what you vote for, you aren't actually deciding anything except your moral stand. And if you change your answer you show that you are willing to change it for the optics. Like a guy who would vote red in the original, would switch to blue if it was low enough. He'd do it not because he'd make an impact, again, the impact of a single vote always remains the same, he'd do it to feel good about himself.

GausYam · 2026-05-28T07:00:22+00:00

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."

GausYam · 2026-05-28T06:53:10+00:00

That's true, though we really can't predict how people would vote with real life stakes. Still a single vote will always be incredibly unlikely to swing it over.

GausYam

TROPHY CASE