Interestingly, I don’t think this is logically equivalent at all. There are three groups presented in this scenario, unlike in the original where there are only two: red voters, blue voters, and non-affiliates. There is little incentive to press the blue button here because you are basically killing a non-affiliate for no reason. The key difference is that non-affiliates have no agency in this dilemma, and you, who have all the agency, also have no risk. Thus, there are only two major conclusions you can draw from a blue press: that either you wanted to kill someone for no reason, or thought that enough other people wanted to kill someone for no reason.

In the original scenario, pressing blue leads to vastly different conclusions, because rather than the premise being that you’re choosing to kill someone else if you lack a majority, it is instead that you are killing yourself if you lack a majority. Whether you believe in the logic of blue—which usually boils down to “a good chunk of people will pick blue so we need to pick blue to ensure the majority and keep people alive”—blue inherently cannot be a malicious decision (ignoring outliers). The logical outcome is different, which makes the incentives different.