Poll Finds Most US Voters Oppose Prediction Markets on Elections
Most voters say no to betting on election outcomes
A poll found that a majority of Americans in both major parties oppose using prediction markets to bet on election results. Prediction markets are platforms where people trade contracts tied to the outcome of future events, and the price of a contract is treated as a probability.
The survey was conducted by Ipsos and published by Reuters. It interviewed 4,506 US adults between Sept. 30 and Oct. 5.
The same respondents also opposed betting on other events, such as military actions and government policy decisions, according to the poll.
Key numbers from the survey
- 69% of Democrats opposed using prediction markets to bet on election results.
- 61% of Republicans opposed the same practice.
- The poll covered 4,506 US adults from Sept. 30 to Oct. 5.
What the poll did and did not measure
The survey measured approval of betting, according to the source. That means the answers do not show whether people trust the forecasts these markets produce, or which objections shaped their views.
The source states the results weaken the industry's main defense, which is that prediction markets produce better information. Accuracy does not answer the separate question of whether the bets behind the numbers should exist at all.
How the odds are made
In a basic election contract, the winning side pays $1 and the losing side pays nothing. If someone buys a candidate's victory at 60 cents, they make 40 cents if the candidate wins, or lose the 60 cents if the candidate does not.
The market reads that price as a 60% probability. Under the percentage, buyers and sellers are committing real money to their expectations. A person who thinks the candidate's chances are better than the price suggests has a reason to buy; a person who thinks they are worse has a reason to sell or take the other side.
Anyone can take part, so the mix of participants can include supporters of a candidate as well as people who simply like to gamble. The odds do not show which of them traded the most.
Kalshi's changes and watch-only audience
Kalshi, a prediction market platform, released an election update on Oct. 6. The update introduced low-volume labels and more prominent trade feeds, along with scores comparing forecasts with outcomes.
The company also said most of its traffic comes from people who watch rather than trade. Its information argument rests on that audience: a relatively small number of traders can produce a price that many more people see.
The source notes that a voter reading a forecast gets no financial benefit from the market and has no say in which events the platform chooses to list. Kalshi decides whether an event is worth offering, traders bet on it, and the event becomes a product.
Fines and suspensions over candidate trades
Kalshi said it fined and suspended four congressional candidates for trading on their own races. Those candidates were trading on elections in which they were also participants, creating a situation where political interests and financial incentives could overlap.
The source says this points to two problems: insider trading, where someone bets on knowledge the rest of the market does not have, and election tampering, where someone with money on the bet can influence the result.
Kalshi says its rules exclude relevant political insiders, and that it screens accounts and investigates suspicious trades. The exchange also bans war and death contracts.
What is confirmed
- Ipsos interviewed 4,506 US adults from Sept. 30 to Oct. 5 for the Reuters-published poll.
- 69% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans opposed betting on election results through prediction markets.
- Kalshi fined and suspended four congressional candidates for trading on their own races, according to Kalshi.
- Kalshi's Oct. 6 election update added low-volume labels, trade feeds, and score comparisons between forecasts and outcomes.
- Kalshi said most of its traffic comes from people watching rather than trading.
What is still unclear
The poll measured approval of betting, so it does not reveal whether people trust the forecasts or what reasons drove their answers.
The source also does not say how the public's views might change if platforms publish more detail about how their prices were formed.
Why this matters
The source says prediction markets want to be treated as a source of public knowledge about elections while still operating as commercial markets. That creates tension, because the same number that looks like a neutral forecast comes from people wagering on who governs.
Voters can value a forecast and still object to a system where people who run elections, or influence how they are run, can profit from the result, according to the source.
The source raises a further concern about blanket bans: they can push activity to platforms where misconduct is harder to investigate and traders are harder to sanction.
What could come next
The source suggests prediction markets could gain a larger role in election coverage by showing how their forecasts were produced. That would mean displaying the trading behind the odds and comparing past probabilities with actual results, including forecasts made while the outcome was still uncertain.
The source adds that published enforcement decisions should explain who broke the rules, how they did it, and what happened to their trades.
Sources
Newisty Editorial Team covers technology, cryptocurrency, digital products, online platforms, developer tools and the wider digital economy. Our content is researched from official sources, company announcements, public documentation, market data and other primary or reputable sources. Articles are reviewed and edited before publication for clarity, accuracy and useful context.