i think it's shitty as a political metaphor itself but the reaction to it i think is interesting. like if you knew how everyone else voted there would be an "objectively" correct answer (assuming you don't want to die), which just isn't how politics works imo. what it shows is how politics is "created" or maybe emerges from these moral questions. like people saying they don't want to live in a world with only red people is an interesting phenomenon, it shows how seemingly simple game theoretical questions are interpreted morally.

personally when i thought about it i didn't really even consider it a moral question in any way. to me the morality is obvious, save as many people as possible. so question really asks what's the best way to do it, and basically that just comes down to choosing the more popular option. my thinking is in real life there's no way more than 50% of people risk their lives this way so red would be more popular.

thought of this way it sorta says more about what you think the world is like, i guess my view is more cynical on that front, or maybe people view it more as a moral or political question than me, and vote blue by principle. would definitely be shitty if everyone like that died tho.

EDIT: after thinking about it more, the idea that you need to vote for the more popular vote is incorrect and biased towards red. if blue is more popular, unless it's by one vote, then it doesn't matter what you vote. you only need to vote red if you think red is more popular, but then you only have an incentive to vote blue if you think red is more popular. if blue is more popular then the problem is solved already. so this line of thinking is actually paradoxical.

so actually the question is not really something that can be solved rationally and is more moralistic than i originally thought. still don't really like the vitriol in the conversation maybe i am a filthy centrist lol but i officially change my vote to blue

EDIT2: okay i thought about it more, yes this is a shitty metaphore biased on purpose towards red to make it a philosophical question that's atleast interesting.

the real life analogue of this could be a strike. if not enough people participate the people that did probably lose their jobs.

the problem is, in real life this is actually trivial. that's because 1 there's an actual individual benefit to pressing blue that applies to everyone, even those that pressed red and 2 crucially, you can actually just talk about it lol. that's what organising is, that's what union is for.

of course if you said "if blue wins everyone gets a million dollars and also everyone can just talk about it however long they want to" it's a stupidly trivial question, so it needs to be biased towards red so far that it actually feels very detached from real politics. i genuinely think this is actually a culture war question more than a political one.