4 ms·

The CFTC argues that allowing betting on political events could "commoditize and degrade the integrity of the uniquely American experience of participating in t

The CFTC argues that allowing betting on political events could "commoditize and degrade the integrity of the uniquely American experience of participating in the democratic electoral process." and that betting might incentivize election interference, which could erode public trust in electoral outcomes. It's worth mentioning that betting on elections has happened in black markets for centuries with none of these negative outcomes, as far as I know. But I share the same concern: if there is a legal market for betting on election events with billions or trillions on the line, eventually someone will interfere with an election. We've seen this in sports, we definitely don't need it in American politics.

JoshTriplett 2y ago
> if there is a legal market for betting on election events with billions or trillions on the line, eventually someone will interfere with an election. There are already billions or trillions on the line, and people have far larger incentives already. Betting wouldn't appreciably add to that.
- webstrand 2y ago
  I'd argue that it will, this introduces incentives for parties that were previously disinvolved.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    This is key, it will push more people toward this, not away, because betting is available across all income brackets unlike say, hiring a lobbyist, of which lobbying has rules and regulations that at least in theory are suppose prevent these sorts of things
candiddevmike 2y ago
Organized betting ruins everything. Betting shouldn't be a business, it should be something done between a group of people for fun (like a work pool or a madness bracket between friends). Legalizing sports betting was one of the dumbest decisions and the impact of it on sports has been terrible.
nomel 2y ago
> with billions or trillions on the line This has always been the case, and is why the mega wealthy go one step ahead by influencing the politicians [1], to limit the harm a vote can do, thanks to the democracy destroying Citizens United [2], and the like, that makes it possible. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/top-pacs/2024 https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs... [2] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/a-decade-under-citizens-united https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/a-decade-under-citi...
dgfitz 2y ago
> The CFTC argues that allowing betting on political events could "commoditize and degrade the integrity of the uniquely American experience of participating in the democratic electoral process." I’m wondering why voting is considered a uniquely American experience. I also read somewhere, and I’m too lazy to link it, that books on the American election process have existed since the late 1800s. It’s been wrong 3 times in reference to the presidential winner. Once was recently. Edit: typos
- creaturemachine 2y ago
  As an outsider looking in, it certainly is unique. Uniquely broken.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    But it's not. It's broken in exactly the way you would expect with two basically enshrined parties, FPTP races, low primary turnout, and zero regulation on money in campaigns. Any other country that built their system this way would likely have similar issues.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  >I’m wondering why voting is considered a uniquely American experience. America is the world's oldest democracy, so in the earlier days of the republic it was uniquely American. That's where a lot of the American national pride about elections comes from and I think the CFTC was conflating the rhetoric. Europeans hate American national pride, so that's where a lot of the sniping comes from. (Europeans also snipe at each other, so they're not to be taken too seriously)
DrillShopper 2y ago
> "commoditize and degrade the integrity of the uniquely American experience of participating in the democratic electoral process." The joke of a candidate every cycle from each major party already commoditizes and degrades the integrity of the election.

JoshTriplett 2y ago

> if there is a legal market for betting on election events with billions or trillions on the line, eventually someone will interfere with an election. There are already billions or trillions on the line, and people have far larger incentives already. Betting wouldn't appreciably add to that.

webstrand 2y ago
I'd argue that it will, this introduces incentives for parties that were previously disinvolved.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  This is key, it will push more people toward this, not away, because betting is available across all income brackets unlike say, hiring a lobbyist, of which lobbying has rules and regulations that at least in theory are suppose prevent these sorts of things

candiddevmike 2y ago

Organized betting ruins everything. Betting shouldn't be a business, it should be something done between a group of people for fun (like a work pool or a madness bracket between friends). Legalizing sports betting was one of the dumbest decisions and the impact of it on sports has been terrible.

nomel 2y ago

> with billions or trillions on the line This has always been the case, and is why the mega wealthy go one step ahead by influencing the politicians [1], to limit the harm a vote can do, thanks to the democracy destroying Citizens United [2], and the like, that makes it possible. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/top-pacs/2024 https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs... [2] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/a-decade-under-citizens-united https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/a-decade-under-citi...

dgfitz 2y ago

> The CFTC argues that allowing betting on political events could "commoditize and degrade the integrity of the uniquely American experience of participating in the democratic electoral process." I’m wondering why voting is considered a uniquely American experience. I also read somewhere, and I’m too lazy to link it, that books on the American election process have existed since the late 1800s. It’s been wrong 3 times in reference to the presidential winner. Once was recently. Edit: typos

creaturemachine 2y ago
As an outsider looking in, it certainly is unique. Uniquely broken.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  But it's not. It's broken in exactly the way you would expect with two basically enshrined parties, FPTP races, low primary turnout, and zero regulation on money in campaigns. Any other country that built their system this way would likely have similar issues.
fsckboy 2y ago
>I’m wondering why voting is considered a uniquely American experience. America is the world's oldest democracy, so in the earlier days of the republic it was uniquely American. That's where a lot of the American national pride about elections comes from and I think the CFTC was conflating the rhetoric. Europeans hate American national pride, so that's where a lot of the sniping comes from. (Europeans also snipe at each other, so they're not to be taken too seriously)

DrillShopper 2y ago

> "commoditize and degrade the integrity of the uniquely American experience of participating in the democratic electoral process." The joke of a candidate every cycle from each major party already commoditizes and degrades the integrity of the election.