Wanna bet? Election wagers provide key insight into results, face regulatory threat

After President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential race, many have looked to the betting markets for insight on who is teetering toward victory, as opposed to relying on traditional polls. The federal government is trying to restrict election betting over concerns about influencing election results.

Over $5 million has been wagered on the 2024 election, according to Election Betting Odds. The site, run by Maxim Lott and John Stossel, uses data from the largest exchanges offering election futures contracts. 

“To me, it is enormous corruption,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) said. He warned that malicious actors could someday decide, “Hey, I will spend millions of dollars smearing some candidate to make sure the candidate I bet on wins.”

Two years ago, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission moved to halt election betting on PredictIt. The nonprofit organization has been able to continue operating during the legal battle. Regulators also rejected an application from KalshiEx, which would have allowed bettors to “invest” up to $100 million in party control of Congress futures contracts.

Instead of placing a regular wager like one might place at a sports book, “investors” buy futures shares of their predicted outcome, and can sell or trade their shares similar to stocks futures. The volume of 2024 presidential election winner trades at Smarkets alone exceeds $7 million.

Vice President Kamala Harris, 52.9%, has the highest chance of winning the presidency, according to aggregated data from Election Betting Odds. The model gives Former President Donald Trump a 45.2% chance to win in November.

Despite polling better than most third-party candidates in recent elections, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 0.4%, has the fifth-highest odds of occupying the White House. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, 0.6%, and former first lady Michelle Obama, 0.5%, both have a higher probability despite not being on the ballot.

CFTC chairman Rostin Behnam has pursued regulation to ban betting on election outcomes on commercial exchanges as long as the regulatory agency oversees such transactions. The CFTC does not have the capability to serve as an election watchdog or to monitor markets for fraud and manipulation, according to Behnam.

Benham’s fear is that betting on elections would “ultimately commoditize and degrade the integrity of the uniquely American experience of participating in the democratic electoral process,” while giving the CFTC the “role of an election cop.”

The Washington Examiner reached out to the CFTC to inquire if there are any plans to hand off the regulatory responsibility to an agency more equipped to play the “election cop” role.

Since JFK did it in 1960, only one betting underdog has won the presidential election: Trump in 2016. Kennedy was only a slight underdog, at +110 odds, while Trump’s win despite his +375 odds being the second longest in history for a U.S. presidential election winner. Truman’s +1500 odds place it as the most unlikely electoral victory since at least 1872.

Polls have been less reliable than betting odds at predicting election results, as there is more variation and polls have inaccurately predicted victories for Romney in 2012, Clinton in 2016, and inaccurately predicted a blowout for Biden in 2020 as opposed to a modest win.

Harris’s win probability decreased by 0.9 points in the last 24 hours, according to the Election Betting Odds model, while Trump’s increased by 1.1 points.