Image via WIRED
***
On October 2, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia allowed KalshiEX LLC to open an election prediction market. Figures such as Elon Musk incentivize political betting and argue that market integration is positive and “more accurate than polls, as actual money is on the line,” while others argue that this is a grave mistake and an encroachment on American democracy.
The last time election betting was highly relevant in the United States was between the 1870s and 1940s. The entangled role of voting and the market was something of second nature to individuals, as it was widely understood that betting naturally accompanied voting. During this time, this was seen as the most accurate way to forecast election results, as it increased public engagement. As the accounts engaging in election betting grew, the ritual became integral to American culture. Even those who could not put a significant monetary stake in the elections engaged because it was important to “back one’s beliefs.”
Election betting slowed around 1940 for numerous reasons such as the legalization of more favorable ways to gamble, such as horse betting, tax shifts, the post-depression economy, and most importantly, the introduction of scientific polling in 1936. This alternative, comprehensive election prediction method extracted the moral challenges of gambling, such as election tampering, information withholding, and strategic manipulation. As time went on, however, election betting became inherently disincentivized and unappealing to the public.
In the past, these wagers flourished when information was scarce or slow to circulate, making it a key alternative for those seeking insights into election outcomes. Today, the opposite is true. Contemporary society’s access to insurmountable amounts of political scientists, analysts, and polling data seemingly contests the need for election betting, yet individuals are once again drawn to political betting markets. Infatuation with gamifying such democratic processes in the modern era highlights humanity’s contentious relationship with the overwhelming availability of information.
The increasingly apathetic relationship toward information is not an exclusively American challenge. While the legalization of election betting in the U.S. in recent months makes this a particularly relevant conversation regarding American cultural values, struggles, and dynamics, international engagement in political betting over the years suggests that this antagonistic relationship to information is a global phenomenon. Individuals engaging in international wagering on U.S. elections say they find political betting fun, engaging, and grounding. Election betting is a strategy to emotionally distance oneself from the gripping reality of politics that often feels heavy and fervorous.
The fact that Americans are willing to accept the risks of commodifying political practices underscores just how taxing the deluge of information is on citizens looking to engage in the political world. Gamifying increasingly complex topics provides a simplification that is satisfying and emotionally relieving to individuals. In recognizing that humans are looking toward emotional escapes from the political landscape, the solution is not to accept and integrate these coping strategies. While election betting may be a soothing and fun practice, it should not be a substitute for political polling.
***
This article was edited by Sarah Davey.
