You Can Now Legally Bet On the 2024 Congressional Elections (apnews.com) 94
A U.S. District Court judge on Thursday allowed New York-based startup Kalshi to legally offer betting on the outcome of the November Congressional elections (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source), despite opposition from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which plans to appeal the decision due to concerns about potential market manipulation and public trust in the electoral process. Within minutes of the ruling, people began placing bets on Kalshi's website. It's currently the only legal opportunity for Americans to bet on U.S. elections under government regulation. Fortune reports: A startup company on Thursday began taking what amounts to bets on the outcome of the November Congressional elections after a judge refused to block them from doing so. The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb in Washington permitted the only legally sanctioned bets on U.S. elections by an American jurisdiction. It enabled, at least temporarily, New York-based Kalshi to offer prediction contracts -- essentially yes-or-no bets -- on which party will win control of the Senate and the House in November. The company and its lawyer did not respond to requests for comment, but within 90 minutes of the judge's ruling, the bets were being advertised on the company's web site. Earlier in the day, the website had said they were "coming soon."
It was not clear how long such betting might last; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which last year prohibited the company from offering them, said it would appeal the ruling as quickly as possible. Contrasting his client with foreign companies who take bets from American customers on U.S. elections without U.S. government approval, Roth said Kalshi is trying to do things the right way, under government regulation. "It invested significantly in these markets," he said during Thursday's hearing. "They spent millions of dollars. It would be perverse if all that investment went up in smoke."
But Raagnee Beri, an attorney for the commission, said allowing such bets could invite malicious activities designed to influence the outcome of elections and undermine already fragile public confidence in the voting process. "These contracts would give market participants a $100 million incentive to influence the market on the election," she said. "There is a very severe public interest threat." She used the analogy of someone who has taken an investment position in corn commodities. "Somebody puts out misinformation about a drought, that a drought is coming," she said. "That could move the market on the price of corn. The same thing could happen here. The commission is not required to suffer the flood before building a dam."
It was not clear how long such betting might last; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which last year prohibited the company from offering them, said it would appeal the ruling as quickly as possible. Contrasting his client with foreign companies who take bets from American customers on U.S. elections without U.S. government approval, Roth said Kalshi is trying to do things the right way, under government regulation. "It invested significantly in these markets," he said during Thursday's hearing. "They spent millions of dollars. It would be perverse if all that investment went up in smoke."
But Raagnee Beri, an attorney for the commission, said allowing such bets could invite malicious activities designed to influence the outcome of elections and undermine already fragile public confidence in the voting process. "These contracts would give market participants a $100 million incentive to influence the market on the election," she said. "There is a very severe public interest threat." She used the analogy of someone who has taken an investment position in corn commodities. "Somebody puts out misinformation about a drought, that a drought is coming," she said. "That could move the market on the price of corn. The same thing could happen here. The commission is not required to suffer the flood before building a dam."
few $ 100 Mn is nothing compared to the billions.. (Score:2)
It should be allowed. A few $ 100 Mn is nothing compared to the billions at stake in US Presidential elections.
No way anyone would be able to manipulate the presidential election 'market' who is not already doing so at the much larger scale and with much bigger payoffs or downsides and bigger potential disasters in the making.
It's only the optics which might look bad to gen pop and maybe if US citizens were to start participating in bulk, like tens of millions of them, there could be some bad effects i gues
Re:few $ 100 Mn is nothing compared to the billion (Score:5, Interesting)
I think at heart of the issue is the continued devaluation of the election. Its already viewed like the NFL football season. People are more caught up in picking the team thats going to win more than the policies involved, what a 4yr term will like, and even if that person has 4yrs left in them. In a nutshell people stop voting for a 4yr plan and instead vote as if the day after the election was about as important as the days following the superbowl. Allowing legalized betting is only going to accelerate this demise that much further. More effort needs to be spent on highlighting what its supposed to be. Save the partisan comments for another thread. This sickness is multi-partisan and infects all aspects of society. You need no other proof than headlines announcing how much money a particular campaign raked in. As if donations alone is all that determines a winner. So-and-so is going to win because they raked in $20M just last night. And following that announcement some people will adjust their voting plans because it seems more important to pick the winning horse (now with a betting component) than actually researching the impacts.
Re:few $ 100 Mn is nothing compared to the billion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent Funny, though the joke I was looking for was about hedging donations with bets on the race.
Currently modded insightful, though for insight I think it needs to consider the "investments" of rich donors in the cheapest candidates who promise to keep rigging the game in their favor. Among the side effects are close elections that make for interesting gambling and horse-race media coverage, but they big spenders didn't get so stinking rich by wasting money. They only want to buy as many votes as they
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Voters assume that the promised impacts are all lies or won't happen because the other side will filibuster or stack SCOTUS or whatever.
It's definitely got worse lately. The Republicans have dropped all pretence of playing fair, and the Democrats don't seem to be willing to do what is necessary to make things happen.
The best outcome will be the GOP imploding and a more moderate and grown-up Republican Party emerging, with conservative but sensible and pragmatic people in charge. That possibility seems remot
Re: (Score:2)
with conservative but sensible and pragmatic people in charge
Those are opposite things. Conservatism has never worked. Austerity always brings stagnation. The only way out is through, you can't go back. Especially now that we've destroyed our life support system's ability to self-repair...
Re: (Score:2)
True, I only meant that if the Republicans were more moderate and willing to work with others to get what they want, it would be better for everyone.
The issue on the progressive side is that we getting getting mediocre centrists, who allow the far right to gain power.
Re: (Score:2)
The Democratic Party has been against progressives for decades at this point, and praises conservatives like Joe Manchin instead. Progressives have left the Democratic Party after Bernie Sanders was stabbed in the back too many times.
Re: (Score:2)
Too true. My question about Kamala sending some of her funding down to other candidates would be whether it would be spent boosting or opposing progressives. Haven't heard back yet :P
Re: (Score:2)
The Democratic Party has been against progressives for decades
In 1972, the Democrats nominated George McGovern, a very progressive candidate, and lost 48 states to Richard Nixon in one of the biggest landslides in history.
Dukakis ran as a liberal and lost in another landslide.
Bill Clinton ran as a centrist but veered to the left after taking office. The Democrats were decimated in the 1994 midterms. Clinton veered back to the right and comfortably won reelection.
You can win with progressives in a conservative country.
Re: (Score:1)
with conservative but sensible and pragmatic people in charge
Those are opposite things. Conservatism has never worked.
Except [wikipedia.org] when it [wikipedia.org] does [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You literally just cited the Reagan era, literally the time when all the things which were working were fucked over in the name of greater profit for corporations, as a time when austerity worked? Without irony?
I have seen some major dipshits on Slashdot in my time, posting some major dipshit comments, but you win teh prize.
Re: (Score:2)
Austerity always brings stagnation. The only way out is through, you can't go back.
Austerity is a bad idea when the economy is in bad shape, deficit spending for appropriately-targeted stimulus is necessary. But debt can't be unbounded, so austerity is necessary to bring it under control -- meaning that when the economy is strong you need to exercise the discipline to apply austerity to reduce debt relative to GDP. Relying solely on GDP growth is dangerous (and what the US has been doing for decades).
As for the US, right now, our economy has rebounded from COVID and looks to be in good
Re: (Score:2)
Biden knows he can't fight the money: His own party will turn on him if he tries. It's the reason Harris has thrown-away her idealism. Hopefully her can-do attitude will expose the senators who care more about money. Then, it's in the hands of the voters.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the reason Harris has thrown-away her idealism.
Harris never was the progressive idealist she cosplayed in 2019. That was an attempt to survive a left-charging primary.
Re: few $ 100 Mn is nothing compared to the billio (Score:1)
Ya true, devaluation of elections is a big problem all over the world. And some sort of extreme divisiveness where normal people (including me) just hate the other side and think it's the end of the world !
Probably due to social media.
15 years back my ex boss had once explained very nicely that all this free / zero cost to publish and consume information thing is like soup kitchens with free food - it's good only for the poor and down on their luck people and not something we should aspire the entire countr
Re: (Score:1)
People are more caught up in picking the team thats going to win more than the policies involved
To a large degree politics were always about soundbites, but it got much worse after 2016. In the current environment of hyper partisan journalism and media, where even fact checkers are partisan, "picking a team" is about the only feasible low-effort way to decide. You no longer have an option to tune into CBS Evening News [wikipedia.org] and have a reasonable chance of becoming informed.
For example, during the debate Harris accused Trump of calling "people carrying tiki torches spewing antisemitic hate" fine people. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Allowing legalized betting ...
Well, throwing more money into US politics will do more damage, you have good reason to be worried. Although you don't grasp the reality, it is already a problem.
Excepting an old-fashioned dishonest propaganda campaign (See: Joe McCarthy. See: GOP 1991 campaign), the biggest spender does win: US elections have been bought, several times.
Trump is the exception: He wants everyone else to promote his campaign: It's why he travels so much, it's a cheaper way of getting people's attention, and it self-sel
Re: (Score:2)
I think at heart of the issue is the continued devaluation of the election. Its already viewed like the NFL football season.
One person's "devaluation" is another person's value. Here in Canada I barely pay attention to our elections. The USA keeps me invested. Sure, it's a circus. But if a bunch of lying clowns are going to debate about how to screw us over in their own different ways, I'd at least like it to be entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
There is actually a downside to allow this. It may make some people more inclined to perpetrate voter fraud for monetary gain. And if that happens it will further erode trust in the voting system and an increase in hysteria about "large scale voter fraud", neither is good for democracy.
An upside is that it's possible that more people will go vote.
It should be noted that this type of betting has gone on for a very very long time even though it isn't legal so I don't know how much a legal alternative will aff
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: few $ 100 Mn is nothing compared to the billio (Score:1)
IMHO we should make voting compulsory and check IDs / citizenship etc properly.
And have a 5 year cooling off period for new citizens/immigrants before they can vote.
That should make it more credible even if few people are unable to vote due to documentation problems or such.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you are a citizen you are a citizen with all the rights and obligations that carry, there is no room in the law or the constitution to have citizens that can can't vote (with caveats like being a felon, residency requirements etc, see https://www.justice.gov/d9/202... [justice.gov], as I understand it.
And there is already a "probation period", it's the time it takes before someone gets their citizenship granted through various forms of naturalization.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you are a citizen you are a citizen with all the rights and obligations that carry, there is no room in the law or the constitution to have citizens that can can't vote (with caveats like being a felon, residency requirements etc, see https://www.justice.gov/d9/202... [justice.gov], as I understand it.
And there is already a "probation period", it's the time it takes before someone gets their citizenship granted through various forms of naturalization.
This. Citizenship is the end of the road, not the beginning. If you're going for citizenship in a country, outside of some very rare circumstances* you've already been living and working in that country for some time. Most countries have a stage between being migrant (I.E. on a visa) and being a citizen, usually called something along the lines of Permanent Residency or Settled Status. Even asylum seekers who are granted asylum are put onto a visa, not immediately given settled status.
*9 times out of 10
Re:few $ 100 Mn is nothing compared to the billion (Score:5, Informative)
"One common tactic of concern trolls is the "a plague on both your houses" approach, where the concern troll tries to convince people that both sides of the ideological divide are just as bad as each other" [rationalwiki.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Well I'll put numbers to his concerns. You only need 51% of the vote in 51% of the states to win the presidential election, meaning a candidate with 26% of the vote can beat a candidate with 74% of the vote. A similar effect in Congress, but if you add in fillibuster you can block any bill with 41% of the congresscritters who only need 51% of the vote. And this isn't theoretical, gerrymandering is a real thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the Founders assumed that the 49% who didn't vote would vote roughly the same as the other 51% in their state. Remember, they (the Founders) didn't want a direct democracy [wikipedia.org] because a regional faction in a large state like Texas or California or New York could override the will of the rest of the nation, so they wanted every person to hav
Re: (Score:2)
You've totally misunderstood, where did you get the idea that people who didn't vote are part of any of this, and that for not voting the numbers wouldn't be 1 vote beats 100,000,000 non-votes?
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's how it works. Two states with equal population have equal power to elect the President, even if just 1 person in State A and 1 million people in State B cast votes. This is not a big problem.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, try re-reading what I said, assuming that 100% of voters vote.
Re: (Score:2)
"One common tactic of concern trolls is the "a plague on both your houses" approach, where the concern troll tries to convince people that both sides of the ideological divide are just as bad as each other"
So tell me this, what is worse: A broken arm or an infected 5 centimeter cut on your back? Can we say that both are equally bad without being entirely equal in outcome or display? Both sides are bad, neither side will make laws that work for the "non-elites", deal with it.
Re:few $ 100 Mn is nothing compared to the billion (Score:5, Informative)
And if that happens it will further erode trust in the voting system and an increase in hysteria about "large scale voter fraud", neither is good for democracy.
The only ones who don't trust the voting system are the very [newsweek.com] ones [cnn.com] committing [cbsnews.com] the fraud [go.com]. They're also the same ones making it as difficult as possible for "those" people to vote and want to raise the voting age to 25 because they're getting their asses spanked by the 18 - 20 age group.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually am sure there will eventually be cases by the well informed or wealthy to make the max bet in a race and either release some major news that they know will effect the race in a (winning manner for them) way or spend a bunch of money on a suitable PAC (but still lesser amount then they can win) to make sure that their bet works out.
Wonder how long it will be before this happens. Maybe will make the company go bankrupt soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder how long it will be before [rich guy(s) betting heavily on insider info or then advertising to swing the election] happens. Maybe will make the company go bankrupt soon.
Prediction markets don't work that way. Like parimutuel betting on horses, the payoff odds (contract prices) shift as bets are laid on each side. The operators of the market take a rakeoff on the transactions no matter which way things come out and always make money. The losers in such cheating are only the other betters / contract
Re: (Score:2)
The only ones who don't trust the voting system are the very ones committing the fraud.
Interesting. I am not committing fraud and yet, somehow or another, I must be... or else your proclamation from on high is full of shit. Get over yourself bro.
Re: (Score:2)
There is actually a downside to allow this. It may make some people more inclined to perpetrate voter fraud
Perhaps so, But I would say that is something for congress to make a rule on if it should be prohibited, Not the CFTC. And there are plenty of financial motivations for different people to favor different election outcomes.
May well be there should be elections rules that no government officials or employees involved in elections or election facilities or their families can deal in elections futures
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger question Is for voters; If many people bet on these... Do they "bet" on the candidate they want to win, Or do they Bet on the candidate who they Expect to have the bigger chance of winning (And then possibly change their vote?) ?
Or do People look at the Odds and bet for the candidate they personally think the global market has underestimated? And then possibly change their vote to whichever candidate they betted on.
You're right and damned if I or anyone else actually know. What I know is that we can count on people trying to find some way to game it.
My how Rome has fallen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
let them eat hot dogs and apple pie?
Well no worries there (Score:1, Interesting)
concerns about potential market manipulation and public trust in the electoral process
The electoral college destroyed any trust in the electoral process in 1824, and the unending series of corrupt ultra-rich presidents getting elected one after the other with zero chance of a regular Joe with good ideas ever making it into office does nothing to restore that trust.
But betting on the congressional elections is boring. A more interesting bet would be whether the MAGA crowd will follow through with their bloodbath promise if their racehorse loses.
Re: (Score:2)
A more interesting bet would be whether the MAGA crowd will follow through with their bloodbath promise if their racehorse loses.
A better bet will be if the convicted felon follows through on his promise to leave the country [newsweek.com] when he loses the election.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A more interesting bet would be whether the MAGA crowd will follow through with their bloodbath promise if their racehorse loses.
You are spreading misinformation [factcheck.org], bloodbath was reference to loss of automotive jobs and has nothing to do with actual violence.
Re:Well no worries there (Score:4, Informative)
Bold of you to assume that anything coming out of Trump's mouth has anything to do with what he was just talking about.
Remember how proud he is of his "weave" which his imaginary English professors complimented him on and said they'd never seen anything like it.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's true, Trump's English professors have never seen anything even vaguely resembling Trump's alleged "weave". Not from him at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Bold of you to assume that anything coming out of Trump's mouth has anything to do with what he was just talking about.
You don't need a justification in order to hate Trump, but if you want to have a justification it has to be reasonable. For speech, this must include considering context and applying charitable interpretation. Otherwise you are back to hating without a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
He did apply context, and was being charitable. Trump has a way of hinting at things without outright saying anything illegal, and it is charitable to assume Trump says things on purpose.
Re: (Score:1)
A more interesting bet would be whether the MAGA crowd will follow through with their bloodbath promise if their racehorse loses.
You are spreading misinformation [factcheck.org], bloodbath was reference to loss of automotive jobs and has nothing to do with actual violence.
No, you are! lol
The factcheck you supplied was about trump's quote:
Trump, March 16: China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico and think, they think, that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let me tell you something to China, if you’re listening President Xi, and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal. Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now, and you think you’re going to get that, you’re going to not hire Americans, and you’re going to sell the cars to us? No. We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath, for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars.
The referenced comment is about the "MAGA crowd" promise of a bloodbath, not about whether or not trump encouraged/endorsed/etc it.
Regardless, I would disagree that trumps comment was solely about the loss of automotive jobs. As I see it, he was starting to comment related to the auto industry:
Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath, for the whole —
... the whole what? Can we agree that was probably referring to the auto industry there? Then...
— that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.
What is going to be the least of it? Seems like that w
Re: (Score:2)
The factcheck you supplied was about trump's quote:
The referenced comment is about the "MAGA crowd" promise of a bloodbath, not about whether or not trump encouraged/endorsed/etc it.
While the intent of the original post was beyond clear, even with this creative re-interpretation of it it is still a lie. There are no widely held views like that or calls for bloodbath in the MAGA crowd.
Regardless, I would disagree that trumps comment was solely about the loss of automotive jobs. As I see it, he was starting to comment related to the auto industry:
We can disagree on specifics, but taking what he said as a threat of violence is clearly unreasonable. You don't get to ignore the context just because it is Trump, even in his rambling and incoherent speech he does tend to stay on topic.
Re: (Score:2)
And you're cherry-picking. The threat of violence is real and well-documented:
https://www.vox.com/21506029/t... [vox.com]
https://time.com/6565184/viole... [time.com]
And of course, there's that time when over 170 police officers were injured:
https://en.wikipedia.org [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Barack Obama did.
Whether it was 'good ideas' or just charisma certainly is debatable. But he came from nowhere and was the people's choice. The Democratic establishment wanted Hillary that year, and of course they did finally get her nominated in 2016...
Harris is worth about $8m (Score:2)
Tim Walz is crazy. He net worth is under $800k. On the other hand he does have a Sega Dreamcast [arstechnica.com] so I think he's ahead of them all.
Re: (Score:2)
The electoral college destroyed any trust in the electoral process in 1824
How? None of the 4 candidates had a majority in the EC, and so Congress did exactly what the Constitution directed, and held a contingent election [wikipedia.org]. The system worked exactly as it was designed to.
Re: (Score:2)
Jackson had the majority of EC votes, 99. However, that number didn't meet the numerical majority threshold. As a result, the corrupt bargain [ushistory.org] ensued in the House which gave the election to Adams.
Re: (Score:2)
How? None of the 4 candidates had a majority in the EC, and so Congress did exactly what the Constitution directed, and held a contingent election . The system worked exactly as it was designed to.
Jackson had the majority of EC votes, 99. However, that number didn't meet the numerical majority threshold. As a result, the corrupt bargain [ushistory.org] ensued in the House which gave the election to Adams.
Was it really a "corrupt bargain", though? Jackson had nowhere near enough votes for a majority, and Clay dropped out and threw his support to JQA. It's not unusual for a candidate to drop out and then announce an alliance with another candidate, combining their support. This is exactly what happened in 1824. And Jackson won anyway in the next election.
Great (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now it finally pays to meddle in the election. Trump will be rich!
It's always paid to meddle. WTF do you think the swamp is?
Re: (Score:2)
Paging Congressman Don King.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Who the FUCK was the corrupt asshole who thought THIS was a good idea?!? As if the Pelosi answer to Insider Trading voilations wasn’t bad enough?!?
The FUCK as we doing here folks. Seriously. Allow this at ANY level, and you’ll have famous “candidates” taking a fall just for the fucking payday.. This isn’t how you fix election problems and the Right to Vote. This is how you end it for good. Watch for ulterior motives with this shit.
Re: (Score:2)
This is legal in much of the rest of the western world, and has been for years. Why hasn't it had your predicted effects there? Or is there evidence that it has?
I think that if candidates are willing to throw an election just to get the payday, that's great! That's not the sort of person we want in office anyway.
Another potential good I could see is candidates who put personal money into their campaigns might bet against themselves as a hedge against loss, especially if they are a longshot to win. It
Re: (Score:2)
Who the FUCK was the corrupt asshole who thought THIS was a good idea?!?
I believe it was the guys who wrote the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Re: (Score:2)
Who the FUCK was the corrupt asshole who thought THIS was a good idea?!?
Recently: The people who want to make moeny off people who want to bet on elections. Historically: The founders.
The FUCK as we doing here folks.
Letting other people do things you don't like is the price of freedom.
Allow this at ANY level, and youâ(TM)ll have famous âoecandidatesâ taking a fall just for the fucking payday.
Let them. *I* don't want such people in office.
Also: Let them bet against themselves as a hedge
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong. Still, wouldn't only the crooked candidates be the ones taking the fall?
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong. Still, wouldn't only the crooked candidates be the ones taking votes?
FTFY. I fear you’ll have crooked/populat/celebrity candidates running just to screw valid candidates, who will hedge and take falls anyway. Pay a valid candidate enough, and they’ll take the payday AND feed corrupt betting.
We WILL “follow the money” one day after an election, and realize we didn’t have an election. Well realize billionaires just took the “right” bets. At that point being an honest candidate who ran a legit campaign, would you NOT have an actual
Derivatives market (Score:2)
It enabled, at least temporarily, New York-based Kalshi to offer prediction contracts -- essentially yes-or-no bets -- on which party will win control of the Senate and the House in November.
This is fundamentally the same as derivatives market where you can place contracts that payout based on the stock market, such as the Dow, going up or down after a certain period, such as next month.
Anyone who thought this would not create feedback and affect the primary market is either lying or delusional. It is common knowledge that the derivatives market create huge influence on the primary stock prices. There had been studies that shown during periods where the derivative market was closed (such as d
Re: (Score:2)
There had been studies that shown during periods where the derivative market was closed (such as due to computer system failure), the primary stock market suddenly lost direction and the price basically floats flat, then sudden bounces up and down actively as soon as the derivative market functions again.
That's because the derivatives market is an honest poll of market-player sentiment: (It's honest because they're betting their own money according to their real opinions, to try to make more.) When the de
Consider it a back-of-the-envelope check (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two sides (Score:2)
I'm not big on things being 'sacred', but elections in a democratic state should be. They're something very serious, and critically important. They should not be treated like a game, but as a sombre responsibility.
On the other hand, that bridge was crossed and burned long ago. Can it make a significant difference to the current sideshow process? The stock market already effectively bets on the outcome anyway.
The real purpose of elections. (Score:2)
I'm not big on things being 'sacred', but elections in a democratic state should be. They're something very serious, and critically important. They should not be treated like a game, but as a sombre responsibility.
Elections need to be honest to fulfill their real purpose. It's not to be fair or nice. Elections exist to stabilize the political system. They do this by modeling a civil war on the issue, believably enough to convince the losers that they'd also lose the civil war, which generally leads to th
Re: (Score:2)
The 'challenges' in the last American presidential election were obviously dishonest and done to generate the appearance of issues that weren't there to create an environment where a coup attempt might work.
You could not have investigated them all 'honestly' with the MAGA crowd only willing to accept findings in their favour and no evidence to review anyway because the pretexts for the challenges were fabricated bullshit.
There's not much to do about that if you have a huge portion of the population in a cul
Amounts to vote bribery. Project 2025 all on it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bookie only has to determine where to put the spread to financially incentivize bettors to vote how they want.
In bookie-sets-odds style bets the bookie's incentive is to adjust the odds so there is a roughly equal number of dollars bet on both sides. That way he makes money on the slight difference between the odds no matter which way it comes out. Presuming the distribution of the size of the bets on each candidate is similar, there are also about as many bettors on each side, so the number of bettor
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, regardless of competing bet interests, the ones that would always dominate are those with the most money to warp the spread. They would effectively translate their dollars into extra votes. Things are bad enough with the distorting effects of unlimited campaign donation; a casino would be an open legisla
Destroying democracy for the sake of a few dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
I've worked as a volunteer registrar for 17 years. I register everyone who properly authenticates themselves, regardless of who they are or where they are. I've registered a lot of people that I know are my political adversaries and I've done that because I swore an oath to carry out my duties faithfully. I do this because I think voting is incredibly important and I want it to be available to everyone. (BTW: 17 years and not one fraudulent registration. I'm careful.) And now comes Kalshi, ready and willing to take a wrecking ball to this foundation of democracy...because they can. The opportunities this operation provides for corruption, manipulation, extortion, and coercion are so numerous that it would take a much longer post to catalog all of them. And the sad thing is that I probably won't have to: they'll be news articles soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
The opportunities this operation provides for corruption, manipulation, extortion, and coercion are so numerous that it would take a much longer post to catalog all of them.
I am not defending this, as I don't think money should play significant role in politics (I am also opposed citizens united). Still, I don't see such significant downsides to this and think you are catastrophizing. Can you elaborate why you think "corruption, manipulation, extortion, and coercion" would result from betting on election outcomes? For betting to be possible there must be two sides willing to take opposite bets, if the bet is known to be rigged, nobody would take a loosing bet.
Re: Destroying democracy for the sake of a few dol (Score:2)
wow an avowed socialist doesn't like money.
news at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, internet troll goes straight to character attacks rather than address anything being said.
News at 11
Calling all slobs, Calling all slobs. . ... (Score:1)
If you cannot see the point in getting up and getting involved and learning to discipline yourself just for participation's sake....? Politics or sports. Then of course all you can do is bet on some fantasy dream team as you'll always have your losses to blame for the complete breakdown of your physical/mental integrity, then the nation's.....
No matter which candidate you bet on (Score:2)
I'll pass (Score:2)
When I am convinced that our Country has started taking election security seriously, I'll consider giving a shit about the elections again.
They can start by removing any network connected machine / device from the equation. Physical media is more difficult to manipulate
than its digital counterpart. ( Example: One has an easier time stealing a billion dollars digitially vs carrying off the same amount in $1
bills )
If they insist on keeping digital voting systems, then the software running them needs to be o
My money is on social unrest (Score:2)
Wait... (Score:2)
Wait a minute. If you bet on this, isn't voting an attempt to throw the result, and therefore illegal?
A safe bet (Score:2)