PredictIt Helps Forecast Election Results. Bureaucrats Are Trying To Kill It.
Election betting markets are often more reliable than pundits. Did the site steal user funds? No. Did they lie to people? No. Harm anyone? No.

What will happen in the future? Is there a way to know?
There is, maybe.
One technique that predicts the future better than any other is prediction markets.
The stock market is one. It lets people bet on prospects of companies. The market often predicts wrong, but a rising stock price is a better forecaster of company success than 100 executives or 10,000 politicians. Falling stocks are good predictors, too.
Prediction markets succeed because of The Wisdom of Crowds, which is also the name of a book by James Surowiecki.
Crowds? That seems odd. Crowds can be like…mobs! Stupid and out of control. "But if a crowd is big enough and diverse enough," says Surowiecki, you just have access to so much more knowledge than you do if you ask an expert or even a team of experts.
We saw this on the old TV program Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? A contestant could call an expert or poll the audience. "Experts" might be geniuses. TV audiences definitely weren't experts, but they got the answers right more often than "experts."
Defense Department officials once wanted to use the same principle to open a market that might predict where a terrorist attack might take place. But then some ignorant senators called the idea "grotesque." The Defense Department dropped the idea.
Today politicians are killing another good idea: PredictIt.org. It's a website that lets Americans bet on elections, like a political futures market.
As I write, PredictIt's bettors say Joe Biden has a 27 percent chance of being our next president; Ron DeSantis has a 21 percent chance; Donald Trump has a 20 percent chance.
That's useful information. But American bureaucrats working at a dreary agency called the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) want it shut down.
Why? Did PredictIt steal user funds? No. Did they lie to people? No. Harm anyone? No!
In fact, its odds are cited by media around the world. My site, ElectionBettingOdds.com, averages odds from PredictIt and foreign betting sites.
Over time, PredictIt's odds have usually been more accurate than pollsters and pundits.
In 2020, bettors correctly predicted Biden's win and called nearly every state correctly.
The shutdown is "extremely unfair," says Brandi Travis, PredictIt's marketing boss in my new video. "Heartbreaking."
It is!
Why can't Americans bet on whatever we want? People bet on sports, cards, horses, etc. The stock market is a form of gambling! We're consenting adults! Leave me alone!
Arrogant CFTC bureaucrats won't even answer a single question about why they're killing a useful website.
But maybe it's because of crony capitalism!
A larger, rival betting site, Kalshi, which takes bets on things like inflation rates and the price of gasoline, now wants to take election bets, too. Kalsi asked the CFTC for permission. Then company officials met with the CFTC dozens of times. They even hired a former CFTC commissioner, hoping that would help (I so hate Washington).
In their application, they complained that PredictIt (their only potential rival in election betting) operates "without complying with a number of…regulations."
The result? So far, regulators are moving to ban both Kalshi and Predictit.
Your government, busy at work, crushing innovative competition.
Crushing it for most of you, that is.
The CFTC does allow very rich people to bet at site called the American Civics Exchange. But to be eligible to bet, the government says you must have $10 million in assets.
Ordinary Americans are out of luck, unless PredictIt meets a stroke of luck in court, where it's fighting for its life.
Once again, American bureaucrats kill something good.
COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
While I question the wisdom of betting the farm on PredictIt and deny anything that can Omnisciently predict the future, don't those who want to ban consenting adults from gambling effectively want to reduce the odds of winning to Zero? Isn't that legally-mandated game-rigging?
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do…..
For more detail visit the given link……….>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
No, that's government making consensual agreements between informed, consenting adults, illegal. IOW, it's creating a monopoly or restricted market on who's allowed to place and accept bets.
IMHO, it's unconstitutional under the Constitution's Ninth Amendment, which says there are unenumerated rights not listed in the Constitution, and making a consensual agreement between adults is one of those unenumerated rights (e.g., not enumerated is your right to self-defense), provided they don't harm others or their property.
The definition of "game-rigging" precludes it being legal. IMHO, most all the gambling games at casinos, are rigged in the sense, that the odds are always against you (Blackjack being an exception as card counters, and the casinos, know).
I wonder what PredictIt predicts for its own demise.
I don't know that it's all good. Sports betting leads to illegal sports manipulation. Election betting could lead to illegal ballot manipulation. Or, heck, *legal* manipulation being done for all the wrong reasons. (Sure, we have that already, but why create even more incentives for it?)
Elections have been manipulated for 200 years.
First major case known way back in 1876.
https://redstate.com/jimthompson/2022/11/08/democrat-voter-fraud-has-a-long-and-robust-history-n656343
If you justify banning anything that might lead to a crime, you're going to end up with a very long list of banned activities.
Add to that: among the motivations for manipulating an election, winning a bet has to be a tiny one.
Uh, no. Legal betting leads to less manipulation, if anything. Legal (or even illegal) bookies hate game tampering. First, it nullifies their advantage in knowing more about a given sport than most casual gamblers. Second, they know most people aren't going to play if they know the game is rigged.
The cases where games have been thrown deliberately were huge scandals.
Remember working with some consultants back in 2002 who were pushing the RAM-D vulnerability assessment process. They were excited that there was going to be a terrorism event index for investors. That market got the kibosh after it was learned that folks could make money on a terrorist event occurring because they invested that way. Am guessing those people put their money into those mortgage backed securities instead…gamblers are gonna gamble.
With hiw many standard election markers 2020 violated, the fear of the left is that showing a prediction betting site constantly on the wrong side of outcomes will have people questioning fortified elections. Market predictions are generally pretty good. In the long run they tend to be more right than wrong. So if election sites were 80 or 90% wrong, fortified elections may be investigated. Can't have that.
^bingo
Except that results of those elections mostly matched up with these predictions. So could we stop peddling completely unsupported fraud bullshit already? Or are you just going to weasel out by claiming that bettors somehow knew about and factored in your fairy tale fraud?
The bullshit is that there wasn't fraud.
Predictions get done based on things like how "bellwether" districts vote - Bai-dung lost 18 of 19 that have voted for the winner for decades.
Bettors take into account the probability and likely extent of manipulation. So they don’t get it wrong.
How does the CFTC get jurisdiction over this? And aren't there foreign alternatives?
Dodd-Frank, I think. These contracts are – or can be defined as – swaps, and swaps are regulated by the CFTC.
As far as foreign alternatives are concerned, the issue is that banks are "discouraged" from enabling payments to and from such alternatives.
Got to get a foreign bank account, then. Or crypto.
Except that the government claims the power to know about your accounts, no matter where they are. Even if they don't have any clear legal authority, they have plenty of ways to pressure anyone who doesn't toe their line. That's why many foreign banks have refused to open accounts for US citizens, and closed existing accounts. Even if you could somehow work around that, it would be difficult and legally frought to repatriate or spend that money.
Foreign banks report on you just like domestic banks.
FWIW shortly after Dodd-Frank passed, I wrote a research piece at the brokerage firm I was working at noting that the act's legal definition of "swap" had the effect of legalising some forms of gambling, including on major sporting events, but doubting that the CFTC would actually let anyone get away with it. And it came to pass...
You know which other group is really good at "forecasting" election results?
The ones who count the votes?
"Your government, busy at work, crushing innovative competition."
Just about wraps it all up.
That's what happens when the USA gets conquered by Nazi( National Socialist )-Empire lovers.
Stossel's site had Hillary with a 77% chance of winning on election day. Not very accurate if you ask me.
You can't tell whether a one-off probabilistic prediction is "right". After all, if I state there's an 83% chance a fair six-sided die comes up not a six - and a betting market has a price of 83% - and I throw it and it comes up 6, that doesn't make the statement false nor the market wrong. Only over an extended number of trials can you tell whether a particular market gives reliable results.
Im making over $13k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.last month her pay check was $12712 just working on the laptop for a few hours. This is what I do,
VISIT THIS WEBSITE HERE………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
"In 2020, bettors correctly predicted Biden's win and called nearly every state correctly."
This statement is incorrect and Stossel misses all the real reasons the government wants to ban betting on elections. First of all, the odds on the election between Trump and Biden changed over time. Initially Biden was the favorite, but on election night Predictit and other sites had Trump with a 90% chance of winning, until the shenanigans began in the swing states where counting was stopped (so they could figure out how many more votes they needed and to print them up) then restated, until later when they called the election and Biden was at 100%.
Consider the profits someone in on stealing the election could have made by betting on Trump early on, then selling out when Trump was at 90% at about midnight, and then putting that money into bets on Biden. If I bet $100 initially, I'd get $180 when I sold the bet on Trump tickets, and then I'd get $1800 from the bet on Biden, for a net return of 1800 % in one day. The government doesn't want any low level, or any, government employee in on the scam, making such bets because they'd investigate.
Further, results that are far from expected are also suspicious. Just like the results of the 2020 election, especially given the desire of Democrats to avoid any transparency of the voting and counting.