I laughed out loud, "Democratic regulators support the ban, citing “the sanctity of elections,” The election system is a joke already, with rampant gerrymandering, the electoral college, FPTP...
The US Constitution grants the federal government limited and enumerated powers. There seems to be no federal power to ban gambling. The 10th Amendment states that all powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. If this issue were brought before the conservative US Supreme Court, a majority of justices might rule that it's a state issue. Nevada seems to have the most liberal gambling laws. Perhaps a betting market could be established in Nevada.
It doesn't sound easy to make a bet and then rig an election to win it.
It would be much easier to make a bet and then rig an election to lose it. It still might not be the most common or easy thing, like you might have to intentionally win a primary and then lose a general election, but I guess I could see a weak case for preventing that.
It would also be possible to bet against a candidate and then assassinate them. Also sounds pretty unlikely -- you'd need to be skilled enough to get away with the crime and keep the money. Or hire a hitman without leaving a trace. I'm sure there are easier crimes and scams out there. But someone could make that case, just like they argued against "Terrorism Futures Markets".
I don't know, I like betting on elections and I think they're not harmful, but don't think I'll vote for Trump just to keep the privilege. Betting doesn't add much to my life, it's just a dumb hobby. I could still look at polls and models or play money markets. I already regard the odds on Manifold as more accurate than PredictIt. And PredictIt is only easy to make money on because of the retail investors making dumb choices -- in a full legalization world without betting limits, I'd be up against hedge funds and trading bots and there wouldn't be any easy money.
If a candidate dies, the money is refunded; it doesn’t resolve as “no”. Maybe someone could make money betting on the person’s opponent, but yeah that adds just one more hurdle.
Unfortunately the ban is broader than elections, and includes all sorts of potentially cool events. But I don’t suggest it’s so important that one should be a single-issue voter on it.
I don't think that's the case. Like, PredictIt has a market for who the Democratic candidate will be. If Biden dies, no one gets their money back, it just resolves to whoever else becomes the Democratic candidate.
I want to rely on something that runs like stock market, not trade via a bookie making up house odds to give about whether “god exists” (as Paddy Power did once.)
Betfair and Smarkets, to their credit, are markets.
What's interesting is that there is one individual (or at least a small handful) who do have a really strong ability to influence these markets -- the canidates.
But this seems like a strong net positive for not banning such a system. After all, the only reliable large way the canidates can affect the market is by tanking their electoral bid. But surely that's a great deal for voters -- we get to eliminate those canidates who would be most likely to accept money to affect outcomes!
Also, the CFTC is doing this now because they want the ban to be in force at a particular time. Administrative law is key there. They have a comment period of 60 days. Then they look at the comments and issue a final regulation, which goes into force. Then, someone brings a lawsuit to strike down the regulation. Suppose the regulation is totally illegal. What matters is not WHETHER it is struck down, but WHEN. If it is struck down with a scathing judicial opinion in December 2024, that doesn't matter; it has served its purpose. So, I'd like to know for which months it will be in effect.
Note that another litigation possibility is that the plaintiff who sues asks for a special "extraordinary remedy" -- perhaps it would be called a stay, perhaps a TOR--- to pause the regulation until the court decides whether to grant a preliminary injunction. That would indeed stop the regulation, and the CFTC might even give up and withdraw it, since there'd be no point in spending lawyer time defending it after November.
While I agree that the decision is bad, I don’t think your representation of the CFTC not wanting to be a “gambling cop” is a fair description. My take is that they don’t want to be responsible for investigating elections, which does seem to be a bit outside their expertise
I'd like you to see more on the Law of this. We don't really need an explanation of why their purported reason for the ban is stupid. I don't think they believe it themselves. What is their true reason? Whatever it is, the big questions are (a) whether the CFTC has authority to regulate that kind of market (is it a commodity?), (b) whether it can ban a product completely, as opposed to just regulating it the same way as pork bellies.
Sanctity? Calling Robin Hanson!
A good point, they are pretty directly invoking sacredness here!
I laughed out loud, "Democratic regulators support the ban, citing “the sanctity of elections,” The election system is a joke already, with rampant gerrymandering, the electoral college, FPTP...
The US Constitution grants the federal government limited and enumerated powers. There seems to be no federal power to ban gambling. The 10th Amendment states that all powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. If this issue were brought before the conservative US Supreme Court, a majority of justices might rule that it's a state issue. Nevada seems to have the most liberal gambling laws. Perhaps a betting market could be established in Nevada.
It doesn't sound easy to make a bet and then rig an election to win it.
It would be much easier to make a bet and then rig an election to lose it. It still might not be the most common or easy thing, like you might have to intentionally win a primary and then lose a general election, but I guess I could see a weak case for preventing that.
It would also be possible to bet against a candidate and then assassinate them. Also sounds pretty unlikely -- you'd need to be skilled enough to get away with the crime and keep the money. Or hire a hitman without leaving a trace. I'm sure there are easier crimes and scams out there. But someone could make that case, just like they argued against "Terrorism Futures Markets".
I don't know, I like betting on elections and I think they're not harmful, but don't think I'll vote for Trump just to keep the privilege. Betting doesn't add much to my life, it's just a dumb hobby. I could still look at polls and models or play money markets. I already regard the odds on Manifold as more accurate than PredictIt. And PredictIt is only easy to make money on because of the retail investors making dumb choices -- in a full legalization world without betting limits, I'd be up against hedge funds and trading bots and there wouldn't be any easy money.
If a candidate dies, the money is refunded; it doesn’t resolve as “no”. Maybe someone could make money betting on the person’s opponent, but yeah that adds just one more hurdle.
Unfortunately the ban is broader than elections, and includes all sorts of potentially cool events. But I don’t suggest it’s so important that one should be a single-issue voter on it.
I don't think that's the case. Like, PredictIt has a market for who the Democratic candidate will be. If Biden dies, no one gets their money back, it just resolves to whoever else becomes the Democratic candidate.
There's a thriving political betting market in the UK, Ireland and other parts of Europe. No evidence of any ill effects here.
Are you talking about Betfair, or something else?
There are many: https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/most-seats
These aren’t real, transparent *markets*.
I want to rely on something that runs like stock market, not trade via a bookie making up house odds to give about whether “god exists” (as Paddy Power did once.)
Betfair and Smarkets, to their credit, are markets.
Indeed. Betfair for sure, but every bookmaker in the UK offers lots of political betting markets.
I miss the days when Intrade.com was about. They had markets on Saddam Hussein's capture, Michael Jackson's trial, etc.
For sure! Intrade was the original. Sad that the US sued them for taking American customers. And then the founder died climbing Mt Everest.
What's interesting is that there is one individual (or at least a small handful) who do have a really strong ability to influence these markets -- the canidates.
But this seems like a strong net positive for not banning such a system. After all, the only reliable large way the canidates can affect the market is by tanking their electoral bid. But surely that's a great deal for voters -- we get to eliminate those canidates who would be most likely to accept money to affect outcomes!
Also, the CFTC is doing this now because they want the ban to be in force at a particular time. Administrative law is key there. They have a comment period of 60 days. Then they look at the comments and issue a final regulation, which goes into force. Then, someone brings a lawsuit to strike down the regulation. Suppose the regulation is totally illegal. What matters is not WHETHER it is struck down, but WHEN. If it is struck down with a scathing judicial opinion in December 2024, that doesn't matter; it has served its purpose. So, I'd like to know for which months it will be in effect.
Note that another litigation possibility is that the plaintiff who sues asks for a special "extraordinary remedy" -- perhaps it would be called a stay, perhaps a TOR--- to pause the regulation until the court decides whether to grant a preliminary injunction. That would indeed stop the regulation, and the CFTC might even give up and withdraw it, since there'd be no point in spending lawyer time defending it after November.
While I agree that the decision is bad, I don’t think your representation of the CFTC not wanting to be a “gambling cop” is a fair description. My take is that they don’t want to be responsible for investigating elections, which does seem to be a bit outside their expertise
There will still be international betting markets! Apparently some Aussies think Taylor Swift is a candidate.
https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2024-5479667
I'd like you to see more on the Law of this. We don't really need an explanation of why their purported reason for the ban is stupid. I don't think they believe it themselves. What is their true reason? Whatever it is, the big questions are (a) whether the CFTC has authority to regulate that kind of market (is it a commodity?), (b) whether it can ban a product completely, as opposed to just regulating it the same way as pork bellies.
Typo: foreing exchange rates
Thanks, fixed.