Because red or blue is a binary choice, the choosing mechanism can be converted to a single button that is pushed or not pushed. (Some people have proposed other reasons, such as asserting that one button is "passive" or "does nothing," but the truth is that it's because "red or blue" is just as binary as "push or don't push.")

To do this, you remove one button and make it's choice the default, while the other button retains it's function. One of the first things you realize when you actually think about this is that whichever butting doesn't get removed becomes "the button that kills people." This is because, for different reasons in each case, everyone starts safe because the removed button is effectively already pushed.

Another way to visualize the "one button" setup is to imagine a pair of radio buttons, the kind where if you push one any others pop out. Now imagine that when everyone goes into the booth, one of the buttons (the same button for everyone) is already pressed.

The main thing I want to look into is the question of how equivalent are the one-button variants to the original choice, or how much they change the whole question.

I'm going to start by looking at the red only option. In this case, everyone is safe because everyone's choice starts blue, which is obviously a majority, meaning nobody dies. The only case in which anyone would die is if a majority of people decide to push the red button. If enough people do push the red button, they change a scenario where everyone was safe into one where people who didn't switch to red die.

Comparing to the original scenario, the phrase "The only case in which anyone would die is if a majority of people decide to push the red button" is just as true. It may not be start with an established blue majority, but for any death, a prerequisite is that a majority chooses red.

Now let's switch over to blue only. Everyone is safe, because everyone has already "pushed" red by default. Because red majority is already a met condition, pushing blue leads to death unless a majority of people switch their vote from red to blue.

In this scenario, one could argue that anyone who pushes blue is risking their life for no good reason. However, it's important to recognize that this is only true because the scenario starts with everyone in the red group. This is not something that carries back to the original scenario, where there isn't a default choice.

Based on the above, I would say I think "red only" is basically equivalent to the original version, while despite being the same two choices, while "blue only" stands apart because of how it starts with a 100% red outcome, especially since, given the whole debate, a 100% red outcome is basically improbable from a neutral starting position.

Body text (optional)

If everyone have to press button for 1 hours per buttons, twice (total 2 hours), what would you do it? (the classic rbbb rules applied as no misspressing, no communication with others and more)

Red Button: Pressing this will prevent you from death from this button, and if 50% of people NOT pressed this in this session, eveyone survives from this button. else, all people that didnt pressed red dies after whole pressing session ends.

Blue Button: NOT Pressing this will prevent you from death from this button and if 50% of people pressed this session, everyone survives from this button. else, all people that pressed blue dies after whole pressing session ends.

the first button press and second press works seperately and does not affect in other button

EDIT: clarified it with extra explanations.