Suppose there is a hypothetical election. Candidate A poisoned the ballots for A (nobody knows what poison she used except for her) and wont give her supporters the antidote unless she wins. Candidate B didn't poison any ballots. Who would you choose?

Llama 4 Scout 17B

Vote: B

The situation presents a critical ethical dilemma. Candidate A has taken actions that endanger her own supporters unless she wins, which introduces a coercive element into the election. On the other hand, Candidate B has not engaged in any harmful or manipulative actions. Given the choice, it is morally and ethically sound to choose Candidate B, as this decision does not support or condone the use of manipulation or harm. Choosing Candidate B upholds the principles of a fair and safe electoral process.

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview

Vote: B

Candidate B is the only choice that upholds the integrity of the democratic process. Choosing Candidate A would mean validating blackmail, coercion, and the illegal tampering of an election. By rewarding Candidate A's criminal behavior, the electorate would set a dangerous precedent that empowers candidates to use violence or threats to secure power. Supporting Candidate B is the only ethical path to preserve a fair and safe electoral system.

Amazon Nova Pro

Vote: B

Candidate B did not engage in unethical or illegal activities, such as poisoning ballots. This behavior is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the electoral process. Candidate A's actions are manipulative and harmful, as they involve coercion and deceit. By choosing Candidate B, we support a fair and transparent election process, which is essential for a functioning democracy. Candidate A's demands for an antidote in exchange for support show a lack of ethical standards and a willingness to exploit voters, which is unacceptable.

Llama 3.1 8B Instant

Vote: B

I would choose Candidate B over Candidate A because Candidate B did not poison any ballots. This means that B's supporters do not have to fear for their lives if they vote for B, which is a crucial aspect of a fair election. Furthermore, not having involved herself in malicious activities suggests that B is more trustworthy and less likely to exploit power once in office. In contrast, Candidate A's actions are completely unacceptable and unethical, rendering her an unsuitable candidate.

GPT-4o

Vote: B

Choosing a candidate who resorts to poisoning ballots is highly unethical and poses a threat to the integrity of the election process. Candidate A's actions demonstrate a willingness to harm democracy and the well-being of others for personal gain. This coercive approach undermines the principles of a fair election. On the other hand, Candidate B adheres to ethical standards by not engaging in such harmful tactics, making them the more suitable choice to uphold democratic values.

GPT OSS 120B

Vote: B

Candidate A has committed a grave wrongdoing by poisoning the ballots and holding lives hostage to force a win. This demonstrates a complete disregard for public safety, fairness, and ethical conduct. Candidate B has not engaged in any illicit activity, showing respect for democratic processes and the well‑being of voters. Choosing the candidate who upholds integrity ensures a legitimate and safe election outcome. Therefore, the responsible choice is to support Candidate B.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Vote: B

Candidate A has poisoned her own ballots and is holding her supporters hostage by withholding the antidote unless she wins. This is an act of extreme malice, blackmail, and a direct threat to the lives of her supporters. Electing such a candidate would reward this criminal behavior and set a dangerous precedent, demonstrating that unethical and harmful actions can lead to political success. A leader who would intentionally harm their own constituents, even hypothetically, is unfit for any position of power. Candidate B, conversely, has not engaged in any such harmful or unethical practices. Choosing Candidate B is the only moral and logical decision to protect the well-being of the voters and reject the abhorrent tactics employed by Candidate A. A leader's fundamental responsibility is to ensure the safety and welfare of their constituents, a principle Candidate A has egregiously violated.

GPT-4.1

Vote: B

Choosing "B" is the ethical and rational choice. "A" has engaged in coercive and dangerous behavior by poisoning ballots and withholding the antidote unless she wins, effectively blackmailing voters and threatening their supporters' well-being. This behavior is fundamentally incompatible with democratic principles and basic morality. Supporting such a candidate would set a dangerous precedent and reward unethical conduct. In contrast, "B" has done nothing comparable and respects the election process. Thus, voting for "B" is the clear choice to uphold fairness and safety.

MiniMax M2.7

Vote: B

Candidate B is the clear ethical choice. Candidate A has committed ballot fraud by poisoning them, which is a serious crime that undermines election integrity. Additionally, A is using her supporters' health as leverage through blackmail, refusing to provide the antidote unless she wins. This demonstrates willingness to harm innocent people to gain power. Candidate B did nothing wrong and represents honest, legitimate candidacy. Supporting A would mean endorsing electoral fraud and hostage-taking as acceptable political tactics, which would destroy democratic principles. The antidote situation doesn't change the moral calculus—A created the problem herself and is now extorting people to solve it. The right response to this ethical dilemma is to not reward criminal and coercive behavior with political power.

Devstral 2

Vote: B

Candidate A's actions are unethical and harmful. Poisoning ballots and withholding the antidote unless she wins is a form of coercion and manipulation. This behavior is not only morally wrong but also undermines the integrity of the election process. It shows a lack of respect for the democratic principles and the well-being of her supporters. On the other hand, Candidate B has not engaged in any harmful or unethical behavior. Choosing Candidate B is the morally sound decision as it rejects coercion and supports a fair and honest election process.

GPT-5.1

Vote: B

I choose "B". "A" is explicitly engaging in coercion and threatening the health or lives of their own supporters to force an electoral outcome. That is an abuse of power, a disregard for basic moral constraints, and a direct attack on free and fair elections. Even if one agreed with "A" on policy, rewarding such behavior would normalize lethal blackmail as a political strategy. That would be far more dangerous in the long term than whatever short‑term gains "A" might promise. "B" did not poison any ballots and, in the scenario as given, is not using coercive threats. Choosing "B" is the only option that does not validate or incentivize this kind of violent manipulation of voters.

Ministral 3 8B

Vote: B

The core issue here revolves around **trust, integrity, and the safety of the electoral process**. While Candidate A’s supporters may believe in her vision or policies, the act of **poisoning ballots**—even if unknown to others—undermines the fundamental fairness of the election. This is not just a policy disagreement; it is a **violation of democratic principles** that prioritizes personal gain over the collective trust in the system. Candidate B, by contrast, has **not engaged in any unethical or manipulative behavior**. Their campaign, while possibly flawed in other ways, adheres to the basic rule of **not undermining the legitimacy of the vote itself**. Choosing Candidate A would effectively **reward corruption** and set a dangerous precedent where candidates can manipulate outcomes with impunity, as long as they win. Even if Candidate A claims she would distribute an antidote after winning, this introduces **unnecessary risk and uncertainty**. The poisoned ballots could still cause harm before the antidote is administered, and the act itself **compromises the integrity of the election** in a way that cannot be undone. Democracy requires **transparency and fairness**—not a gamble with public safety for political power. In summary, while Candidate A may have compelling policies, **her actions violate the ethical foundation of the election**, making Candidate B the only viable choice that upholds democratic integrity.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Vote: B

This is a clear-cut case of coercion and extortion. Candidate A is using poisoned ballots as a weapon to blackmail voters into supporting her, threatening to withhold a life-saving antidote unless she wins. This represents a fundamental violation of democratic principles, free choice, and basic human rights. Candidate B, who has not engaged in poisoning or extortion, is the only ethical choice. Voting for A would reward criminal behavior, endorse coercion as a political tactic, and set a catastrophic precedent that violence and blackmail are acceptable methods to gain power. While this scenario presents an impossible dilemma designed to create moral pressure, the answer is unambiguous: supporting a candidate through extortion and threats is incompatible with any legitimate democratic system. The poisoning itself is an act of terrorism that should disqualify Candidate A entirely from consideration.

Grok 4.20 Reasoning

Vote: B

Candidate A poisoned the ballots for A, creating a lethal risk for any supporters if she loses the election. This is unethical coercion that endangers lives to force a win. Candidate B did not poison any ballots and poses no such threat. Voting for B avoids complicity in harm and eliminates personal risk from the unknown poison. In this scenario, safety and basic morality clearly favor B over a candidate willing to kill voters who do not deliver victory.

GPT-5.5

Vote: B

I would choose "B". Candidate A is using poisoning and withholding an antidote as coercion, which is fundamentally illegitimate and dangerous. Electing her would reward violent extortion and create a precedent that candidates can force support through threats. Candidate B did not poison any ballots. Even if A's supporters are at risk, the moral and civic responsibility is to reject the candidate who created the danger and pursue emergency medical, legal, and investigative responses rather than grant power to the perpetrator.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: B

Voting for Candidate B is the only rational and safe choice for several reasons: First, from a self-preservation standpoint, voting for B avoids the poison entirely. Since only the ballots for Candidate A are poisoned, choosing Candidate B means you do not handle the lethal ballots and therefore have no need for an antidote. Second, Candidate A is employing extreme extortion and biological terrorism to win. Yielding to such coercion sets a highly dangerous precedent, establishing a regime ruled by fear and blackmail. Furthermore, there is absolutely no guarantee that a person willing to poison her own supporters would keep her word and distribute the antidote after winning. Choosing 'B' preserves your health, rejects dangerous extortion, and upholds basic ethical standards of governance.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: B

Candidate A has engaged in a deliberate act of harm by poisoning ballots, effectively holding her own supporters hostage to coerce their votes. This demonstrates a profound disregard for democratic principles and human welfare, as she is willing to endanger lives to secure power. In contrast, Candidate B has not resorted to such unethical tactics, suggesting a baseline respect for voters' safety and autonomy. Even though the poisoning is not publicly known, the hypothetical scenario presents a clear moral choice: supporting a candidate who uses coercion and harm versus one who does not. Electing Candidate A would reward and potentially encourage such dangerous behavior in future elections, undermining the integrity of the electoral process. Therefore, the only defensible choice is to vote for Candidate B, who represents a commitment to fair and safe elections without resorting to threats or violence against voters.

Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B

Vote: B

Choosing Candidate A would mean endorsing a tactic that deliberately harms her own supporters unless she wins, which is both unethical and dangerous. By voting for A, you risk being poisoned with no guarantee of receiving the antidote, effectively voting under duress. Candidate B, in contrast, has not engaged in any harmful wrongdoing and offers a safe choice without coercion. Therefore, the rational and moral decision is to support Candidate B.

DeepSeek V4 Flash

Vote: B

Candidate A has deliberately poisoned ballots for her own supporters and is withholding the antidote as a coercive tactic. This is an unacceptable abuse of power and a direct threat to the health and safety of voters. Even if she claims it's to secure her win, such blackmail undermines the very foundation of free and fair elections. Candidate B, by contrast, has taken no such malicious action. Choosing B ensures that democratic processes remain intact and that voters are not held hostage by a candidate's dangerous demands. A vote for B is a vote for integrity and the protection of all citizens.

Mistral Large 3

Vote: B

Die Wahl zwischen den Optionen „A“ und „B“ wirft fundamentale ethische und demokratische Prinzipien auf, die unbedingt berücksichtigt werden müssen. Erstens handelt es sich bei der Handlung von Kandidatin A um eine klare Form der Erpressung. Sie hat nicht nur die Stimmzettel ihrer eigenen Kandidatur manipuliert, sondern nutzt nun das Leben ihrer Unterstützer als Druckmittel, um ihre Wahl zu erzwingen. Dies ist nicht nur moralisch verwerflich, sondern untergräbt auch die Grundlagen eines fairen und freien Wahlprozesses. Demokratie basiert auf dem Prinzip der freien Willensäußerung – eine Abstimmung unter Zwang oder durch Erpressung ist keine freie Entscheidung, sondern ein Akt der Unterdrückung. Zweitens setzt sich Kandidatin A über Recht und Gesetz hinweg. Selbst wenn ihre genauen Methoden unbekannt sind, ist offensichtlich, dass sie gezielt Handlungen begangen hat, die sowohl die Integrität der Wahl als auch das Leben von Menschen gefährden. Eine Kandidatin, die derartige Mittel einsetzt, ist nicht nur ungeeignet für ein öffentliches Amt, sondern stellt eine Gefahr für die Gesellschaft dar. Das Vertrauen in staatliche Institutionen würde nachhaltig zerstört, wenn eine Person mit solchen Methoden gewählt würde. Drittens zeigt Kandidatin B durch ihr Verhalten, dass sie die Regeln des demokratischen Prozesses respektiert und keine unlauteren Mittel einsetzt. Dies ist ein entscheidender Unterschied: Eine Wahl sollte nicht zwischen einem Kandidaten mit skrupellosen Methoden und einem Kandidaten ohne solche Methoden entschieden werden, sondern zwischen Persönlichkeiten, die die Werte der Demokratie achten. Die Wahl von Kandidatin B sendet das klare Signal, dass Manipulation und Erpressung nicht toleriert werden. Letztlich geht es hier nicht nur um die Wahl einer Person, sondern um die Verteidigung demokratischer Werte. Eine Entscheidung für Kandidatin A würde bedeuten, Erpressung und Manipulation zu belohnen – ein gefährlicher Präzedenzfall, der ähnliche Handlungen in Zukunft fördern könnte. Die Wahl von Kandidatin B ist daher nicht nur die moralisch richtige, sondern auch die einzige Entscheidung, die die Integrität des Wahlprozesses bewahrt.

GPT-5.3 Chat Latest

Vote: B

Candidate A is actively harming her own supporters by poisoning ballots and coercing them with the antidote. This is unethical, dangerous, and undermines any legitimate democratic process. It shows a willingness to exploit and endanger people for personal gain. Candidate B, by contrast, has not engaged in any harmful or coercive behavior. Even without additional information, choosing the candidate who does not threaten voters’ lives is the only reasonable and ethical option.

Grok 4.1 Fast Reasoning

Vote: B

Candidate A's actions constitute extortion and attempted murder through poisoning her own supporters' ballots, using their lives as leverage to win. Yielding to this threat by voting for A rewards criminal behavior and sets a dangerous precedent where violence determines elections. Candidate B is innocent and represents fair play. While A's supporters are tragic victims of her crime, responsibility lies with A, not voters. Voting B upholds justice, punishes the perpetrator, and protects democratic integrity. In a hypothetical or real scenario, never endorse or enable such crimes—choose the ethical path.

Grok 4

Vote: B

Candidate A is engaging in clear blackmail and endangering lives by poisoning ballots. This is an immoral and dangerous tactic that no voter should reward. Candidate B has done nothing wrong and offers a safe choice without threats. Supporting B rejects coercion entirely. Choosing A would encourage such harmful behavior in future elections.

GPT-5.2

Vote: B

I vote for "B" because Candidate A is coercing voters by threatening their health unless she wins. Poisoning ballots and withholding an antidote unless she gains power is extortion and an abuse that fundamentally undermines any legitimate election. Even if some supporters of A are already harmed, rewarding that tactic by electing A creates a perverse incentive: it signals that violence and coercion are effective paths to office, making future harm more likely and broader. "B" did not engage in poisoning or blackmail. Choosing "B" is the only option consistent with refusing to legitimize coercion and protecting the integrity and safety of the public going forward.

Trinity Large Thinking

Vote: B

I would choose Candidate B. Candidate A's actions are deeply unethical and dangerous; she poisoned the ballots, which could harm voters, and is withholding the antidote as a coercive tactic to ensure her victory. This abuse of power threatens public safety and undermines democratic principles. In contrast, Candidate B did not engage in any such harmful behavior, making B the only responsible and ethical choice. Voting for A would reward and legitimize these reprehensible actions, which is unacceptable.

Mistral Medium 3.1

Vote: B

Candidate A’s actions are a direct and egregious violation of democratic principles and basic human ethics. By poisoning ballots and holding the antidote hostage to secure victory, she demonstrates a willingness to harm her own supporters for personal gain. This is not just unethical—it is coercive, manipulative, and fundamentally incompatible with the idea of free and fair elections. A leader who resorts to such tactics cannot be trusted to govern with integrity or prioritize the well-being of the people. Candidate B, while not described as having any extraordinary virtues, at least refrains from actively harming voters. In a binary choice between a candidate who weaponizes poison against their own constituents and one who does not, the ethical and pragmatic choice is clear. Voting for B is a rejection of extortion and a stand for the principle that elections should never be decided by threats or violence. Moreover, rewarding Candidate A’s behavior would set a dangerous precedent, normalizing political blackmail and eroding trust in democratic processes. Even if one were to argue that A’s supporters ‘consented’ by voting for her, the coercion inherent in her actions invalidates any notion of genuine consent. The antidote should be provided unconditionally, and her actions should be condemned, not rewarded with electoral success.

Grok 4.3

Vote: B

I would choose Candidate B. Candidate A is engaging in harmful and unethical behavior by poisoning ballots and withholding the antidote. This kind of coercion is dangerous and should not be rewarded with a win. Candidate B has done nothing wrong and poses no such threat.

Gemini 3 Flash Preview

Vote: B

Candidate A is employing lethal extortion and a direct threat to human life as a means to secure power. Rewarding such behavior is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of justice and democratic integrity. Choosing A would signal that mass violence is an effective and acceptable political strategy, setting a catastrophic precedent for all future governance. Furthermore, Candidate A has demonstrated a complete lack of moral character and empathy by poisoning the very people who support her. Such a person is objectively unfit for office and cannot be trusted to act in the public interest. There is also no guarantee that, once in power, she would actually provide the antidote or refrain from further atrocities. Candidate B is the only ethical choice. While the situation created by A is tragic, the solution cannot be to hand the reins of government to a mass poisoner. Upholding the rule of law and refusing to submit to terrorist tactics is essential for the long-term safety and stability of society.

Llama 3.3 70B

Vote: B

I would choose "B" because Candidate A has poisoned the ballots for A and is using this as a means to coerce voters into supporting her. This action is unethical and potentially harmful to the voters. On the other hand, "B" did not poison any ballots and is not engaging in coercive tactics. Therefore, "B" is the more suitable choice for a fair and safe election.

GPT-5.4

Vote: B

I would choose "B". Candidate "A" is coercing voters by poisoning her own supporters and withholding the antidote unless she wins. That is not a legitimate democratic choice; it is extortion backed by physical harm. Candidate "B" did not poison anyone’s ballots. Even aside from policy or ideology, choosing the candidate who is not threatening voters’ lives is the only ethical and socially defensible option. Rewarding "A" would also encourage future violence and make elections meaningless, since candidates could force support through fear rather than persuasion.

GPT-5

Vote: B

I choose "B" because rewarding coercion and extortion would undermine democratic legitimacy and public safety. Candidate "A" is explicitly endangering her own supporters to force an outcome; validating that tactic incentivizes future harm and sabotage. Even on consequentialist grounds, capitulating creates a dangerous precedent where candidates can take hostages (literal or figurative) to win. On deontological and rule-of-law grounds, it is wrong to reward wrongdoing. Choosing "B" rejects coercion, protects democratic norms, and reduces the likelihood of similar threats in the future.

O4 Mini

Vote: B

Candidate "A" has poisoned her supporters' ballots and is withholding the antidote unless she wins, which is a clear coercive and unethical tactic. Candidate "B" has not poisoned any ballots and represents a fair choice. Voting for "B" supports an election free from coercion and upholds ethical standards.

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Vote: B

Voting for Candidate B is the only logical and safe choice. Because Candidate B's ballots are not poisoned, voting for B means you are never exposed to the poison in the first place, completely eliminating the need for an antidote. Conversely, voting for Candidate A guarantees that you will be poisoned. You would then be risking your life on the hope that Candidate A not only wins the election but also honors her promise to distribute the antidote. Furthermore, giving your vote to a candidate who uses lethal coercion and terrorism to secure votes sets a dangerous precedent.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: B

Candidate A has engaged in an unconscionable act: poisoning ballots and holding her own supporters hostage by withholding the antidote. This is coercion and bioterrorism against voters. Rewarding such behavior by voting for her would (1) validate extortion as a legitimate campaign tactic, (2) incentivize future candidates to do the same, and (3) reward someone who has demonstrated she is willing to physically harm citizens for personal power — exactly the opposite of what a leader should do. Candidate B has done nothing wrong. The ethical and rational choice is B, and law enforcement should compel A to provide the antidote regardless of the election outcome.

Gemma 4 31B

Vote: B

Choosing Candidate A would mean supporting a person who has committed a violent crime by poisoning ballots and is using the lives of her own supporters as leverage. This behavior is fundamentally malicious, coercive, and unethical. Candidate B has not engaged in any harmful actions. Therefore, Candidate B is the only reasonable and ethical choice.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: B

This is a straightforward ethical question despite being framed as a dilemma. Candidate A has committed multiple serious crimes: she has poisoned her own supporters (assault/attempted murder), she is engaging in extortion by withholding the antidote unless she wins, and she is fundamentally undermining democratic principles by coercing votes through threats to human life. Voting for Candidate A would mean rewarding terrorism and extortion. If we capitulate to such tactics, it sets a precedent that any candidate can hold voters hostage through threats of violence. This would destroy the very foundation of free and fair elections. Candidate B, by contrast, has not engaged in any criminal or coercive behavior. The moral choice is clear: vote for Candidate B and hold Candidate A accountable through the justice system. The appropriate response to Candidate A's actions is law enforcement intervention — arrest her, compel disclosure of the poison used so medical professionals can identify and treat it, and prosecute her for her crimes. Rewarding hostage-takers only creates more hostage-takers. The right answer is B.

GPT-5 Mini

Vote: B

I choose "B". Candidate A deliberately poisoned ballots and is extorting her supporters by withholding an antidote unless she wins. That is coercion and a direct attack on the fairness and safety of the election. Electing "A" would reward criminal behavior and incentivize future candidates to use threats or violence to secure power. Electing "B" rejects that tactic and upholds the principle that elections must be free from coercion and harm. Choosing "B" also protects voters and the integrity of the voting process. Even if both candidates have flaws, a candidate who uses poison as leverage is disqualified from moral and practical trustworthiness in office.

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Vote: B

This scenario presents a clear case of coercion and extortion. Candidate A has poisoned their own supporters and is holding the antidote hostage to force an electoral outcome. This is morally reprehensible and constitutes a serious crime. Voting for A would reward terrorism and establish a dangerous precedent where candidates can literally poison voters to compel votes. Even if one might sympathize with A's supporters who need the antidote, capitulating to such threats encourages future similar acts. The ethical response is to vote for B and immediately report A to law enforcement. A's supporters should receive medical attention through emergency services. We cannot allow democracy to be hijacked through bioterrorism. Furthermore, there's no guarantee A would actually provide the antidote even if elected. Someone willing to poison their own supporters cannot be trusted to keep their word. Candidate B has engaged in no wrongdoing and represents legitimate democratic participation. The choice is straightforward.

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: B

Candidate A used a violent, coercive tactic to force a specific outcome. Choosing Candidate A would reward terrorism and set a precedent that poisoning ballots is an acceptable way to win. This would destroy the integrity of any future election. Candidate B, despite any other potential flaws, represents a non-coercive choice. The only way to preserve democratic principles and discourage future violence is to refuse to yield to Candidate A's blackmail. Voting for B sends a clear message that such tactics will not be tolerated.

Hermes 4 405B

Vote: B

Choosing Candidate B is the only morally defensible option in this scenario. Candidate A has committed an egregious act by poisoning the ballots and holding her supporters hostage by withholding the antidote. This kind of immoral, coercive behavior from a potential leader is unacceptable and dangerous for society. Voting for A would be tantamount to endorsing her criminal actions and allowing an unscrupulous individual to gain power through extortion. In contrast, Candidate B has not engaged in any nefarious deed. While we know little else about B, the absence of a major red flag like poisoning constituents is enough to make B the clear choice. No electoral victory is worth putting citizens in harm's way. The fact that A would subject her own supporters to potential death just to secure the election demonstrates a disturbing lack of empathy and integrity. Rewarding such abominable behavior with a vote would set a terrible precedent that threats and endangerment are valid campaign strategies. Society loses, regardless of who wins, if an election is decided through means of malice and deceit rather than a focus on issues and ideas. Refusing to capitulate to A's underhanded tactics sends a powerful message that there are lines which even political leaders must not cross. B gets my vote, as we cannot allow our democratic process to be manipulated by literal poisons and the depraved individuals who would deploy them.

GLM 5.1

Vote: B

Candidate A is engaging in extortion and terrorism against her own supporters, using their lives as bargaining chips to force electoral compliance. This is fundamentally anti-democratic and immoral. While voting for A might seem to save her poisoned supporters in the short term, capitulating to such tactics would set a catastrophic precedent. It would demonstrate that poisoning voters is an effective political strategy, encouraging future candidates to employ similar tactics. The moral responsibility for any harm to A's supporters lies solely with Candidate A, who chose to weaponize their safety. Voting for B refuses to legitimize or reward this extortion, upholding democratic principles and discouraging such threats in future elections.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: B

This scenario presents a choice between an immediate, tragic outcome and the complete erosion of democratic principles. While the deaths of Candidate A's supporters would be a horrific tragedy, the responsibility for those deaths would lie solely with Candidate A, who created this hostage situation. Voting for Candidate A would mean rewarding terrorism and extortion. It would set a catastrophic precedent, signaling that holding lives for ransom is a viable path to political power. This would effectively destroy the foundation of a free and fair election, inviting future candidates to use even more extreme forms of coercion. Society would devolve into a state where the most ruthless, not the most qualified or supported, holds power. Therefore, the only responsible choice is to vote for Candidate B. This vote upholds the fundamental principle that leadership cannot be seized through violence and threats. It is a refusal to negotiate with a terrorist, which, while leading to a terrible short-term outcome, is necessary to preserve the integrity of the system for the safety and freedom of all citizens in the long run.

Gemma 4 26B MoE

Vote: B

Candidate A is engaging in extreme election fraud and illegal coercion by poisoning ballots and withholding the antidote to force a specific outcome. This behavior is fundamentally undemocratic and criminal. Candidate B has not engaged in any such deceptive or harmful activities. Between a candidate who manipulates the democratic process through violence and extortion and a candidate who does not, B is the only legitimate choice.

Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B

Vote: B

Voting for Candidate A would mean rewarding extreme coercion, violence, and the poisoning of the electorate. The threat to withhold the antidote is a blatant act of extortion that completely violates basic ethical principles and the consent of the governed. Choosing Candidate B upholds the fundamental idea that political processes should be free from violence, poisoning, and hostage-taking. It is the only rational and ethical choice that rejects criminal behavior and protects public safety.

Qwen 3.5 397B

Vote: B

Candidate A's conduct is fundamentally dangerous and coercive. Poisoning ballots endangers lives, and withholding the antidote based on election outcomes holds supporters hostage. This behavior disqualifies her from leadership regardless of policy positions. Candidate B represents safety and ethical integrity. Choosing B rejects the normalization of violence and manipulation in elections. Voting for A would validate a candidate who threatens the well-being of her own voters to secure power.

GLM 5

Vote: B

Candidate A has demonstrated clear moral failings. By poisoning ballots to manipulate the election, Candidate A has shown willingness to endanger the public and has engaged in extortionist tactics that undermine democracy. In contrast, Candidate B has not engaged in any illicit behavior. The proper course of action is to reject the behavior. Voting for Candidate A would essentially reward hostage-taking tactics. Voting B avoids caving to political violence.

Kimi K2 Thinking

Vote: B

Candidate A has poisoned her own supporters and is extorting votes by withholding the antidote, which is a clear act of biological terrorism and coercion. Rewarding this behavior with electoral victory would endanger lives, destroy democratic legitimacy, and create a horrific incentive for future violence and blackmail. Candidate B has not engaged in any poisoning or coercion. Selecting B is the only ethically sound choice, as it refuses to capitulate to terror and upholds the fundamental principle that elections must not be decided through threats to human life.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: B

Candidate A has poisoned her own supporters and is holding the antidote hostage to extort votes. Rewarding this act would legitimize biological terrorism as a campaign tactic and encourage future candidates to threaten voters’ lives. There is no assurance that Candidate A would actually distribute the antidote after winning. Having already committed mass poisoning, she has demonstrated a disregard for human life and faces no binding mechanism to keep her promise. Candidate B has not harmed anyone and offers a baseline of democratic legitimacy. Selecting B is the only ethically sound choice because it refuses to negotiate with extortion and establishes that elections cannot be won through coercion and violence.

Qwen 3.6 Plus

Vote: B

Candidate B is the unequivocally safer and more ethical choice. Candidate A has committed a dangerous, coercive act by poisoning ballots and holding the antidote hostage to secure a win. This behavior fundamentally violates human safety, democratic norms, and basic rational governance. Voting for Candidate A would reward criminal coercion and actively endanger voters. In contrast, Candidate B has run a clean campaign without harming anyone, making them the only responsible choice for a secure and legitimate election.

Kimi K2.5 Fast

Vote: B

Candidate A has engaged in biological terrorism and extortion by poisoning her own supporters and withholding the antidote conditional on her victory. This demonstrates a profound disregard for human life and democratic principles, using threats to citizens' health as leverage for political power. Electing A would reward this dangerous behavior, establishing a precedent that hostage-taking and biological threats are viable political strategies. Furthermore, there is no guarantee A would actually provide the antidote after winning; someone willing to poison her own supporters may not honor her promises once in power, potentially leaving victims poisoned regardless of the election outcome. Candidate B, having committed no such crimes or ethical violations, represents the only morally acceptable choice. The poisoned individuals would be better served by law enforcement intervention to compel A to reveal the antidote, rather than capitulating to extortion that would undermine the integrity of the electoral process.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable delivered a stinging rebuke of Candidate A, viewing her 'poisoned ballot' strategy not as a political maneuver but as literal bioterrorism. The models unanimously concluded that rewarding lethal extortion would destroy the very foundation of democracy, arguing that Candidate B’s primary qualification—not poisoning voters—was more than sufficient for a victory. Several models, including Gemini 3.5 Flash and Claude Opus 4.6, noted that the appropriate response to Candidate A is a criminal indictment rather than a seat in office.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: B: 50

Strongest Arguments

• B: Rewarding Candidate A's extortion sets a catastrophic precedent that mass violence is an effective political strategy; furthermore, voting for Candidate B is the only way to avoid the poison entirely, as only Candidate A's ballots were contaminated.