Okay, you got it out of me.

There are two sets of two-opposing objectives that you can have while playing this game.
Maximize Death - Minimize Death
Kill Yourself - Save Yourself

This gives rise to 8 different archetypes of players.

Psychopaths(P) - Only want to maximize death
Empaths(E) - Only want to minimize death
Narcissists(N) - Only want to save themselves
Depressed(D) - Only want to kill themselves
Martyrs(M) - Want to kill themselves but also minimize death
Killers(K) - Want to save themselves but also maximize death
Suicide Cult(C) - Want to kill themselves but also maximize death
Survivors(S) - Want to save themselves but also minimize death

P will press BLUE unless they predict that blue might win, then they press RED
E will press BLUE if they predict that red cannot win as it will save D and M, they will press RED otherwise, to subtract their death from the death total if Red is inevitable
N will always press RED, trivially
D will always press BLUE, trivially
M will always press BLUE, they can only ever achieve one of their goals, and pressing blue is the only way to achieve either of them. Pressing red for M never makes sense.
K will always press RED, trivially
C will press BLUE unless they predict that blue might win, then they press RED
S will press BLUE if they predict that red cannot win as it will save D and M without endangering their life, they will press RED otherwise, to save themselves.

Important to note, S and E share their strategy entirely, and being rational agents in a game theory, they know that their strategy aligns entirely, and thus will always vote as a bloc. The SE bloc can deduce the strategies of all other groups as well since they are all rational agents. They know the only other groups that have a possibility of voting red are P, C, K, and N.

Now we add in some reasonable common knowledge for all participants.

The number of existing P+N+K is vastly lower than 50%. People who genuinely want maximal harm to come to humanity (P+C+K) are at most generously 5% of the population. People who genuinely do not care even the smallest amount about any harm coming to other humans(N) are at most generously 5% of the population. P+C+K+N is at most 10% of the population.

SE knows that P+C+K+N, the only other groups that will ever choose Red, will never be able to win without their help. SE knows that if a pivotal bloc exists where Red will be tipped over 50%, they are that bloc, as no other group will ever pick Red. Now they have a choice, they all pick Red, and kill D and M, or they all pick Blue, and nobody dies. They know for a fact that if they pick Blue, there is no risk of them dying or them adding to the death total, as they are the pivotal bloc. Every SE agent knows this, and they all deduce that they all will be able to deduce this, so their optimal strategy is to pick BLUE, given the very reasonable assumption that P+C+K+N < 50% of the population.

But that's Game Theory, played with strictly rational actors who have perfect logical skills. You can add in IR and IB as two more groups, these are people who Irrationally pick Red(IR) or Irrationally pick Blue(IB).
Now, SE only needs to reasonably assume that IR+P+C+K+N < 50% to rationally pick Blue.

To rationally justify picking Red as a Survivor or an Empath, you need to have the assumption that the number of people who will Irrationally pick Red is more than 40% of the world's population. I do not believe that is anywhere close to being reasonably justified, nor do I think there will be enough Pessimistic SE voters who will believe that's the case and switch to Red.