91ɬ��

Sean McKeever, professor of philosophy at 91ɬ��, says that’s a mistake. In his view, these markets are small, vulnerable to manipulation and a poor stand-in for what voters actually think.

Here, he talks about how the markets can be gamed, whether they tell us anything useful, and what they do to the way we think about politics.

Are prediction markets particularly prone to corruption, and is that especially problematic?

Yes and maybe. First, many of the events people are betting on can be influenced or, in some cases even entirely determined, by the bettors. For example, a supporter of “candidate X” could place bets that candidate X will win the election, thus raising the implied probability of candidate X winning, thus creating the appearance of support that may not be real. 

It is a bit astounding that one popular market regularly allows bets to be placed on how many times President Trump will post to Truth Social in a given day/week. Similarly, for prediction markets on such claims as, “Kamala Harris will declare her candidacy for the 2028 presidential election on or before Feb. 1, 2027.” In either case, Trump/Harris have it within their sole power to make this prediction true and so to help themselves or others profit from their decision.

Defenders say these markets give citizens valuable information. Do they?

Although prediction markets are sometimes defended on these grounds, I think the answer is: almost certainly not. These markets are, at least at present, quite small, and their “predictions” have not been shown to be more accurate than existing sources of information, such as polls.

Even if they were accurate, what would they actually be telling us?

Taking elections as an example: the information they provide (in a best-case scenario) is information about who other thoughtful citizens think will win. They do not tell us who citizens think should win. They do not provide information about who our fellow citizens actually support, in, for example, an upcoming election.

Are many people even paying attention to them?

No. Even if the markets contain valuable information, they do not play much of a role in making the general population more informed.

Beyond accuracy, do prediction markets promote an objectionable attitude toward our political life?

One problematic aspect of prediction markets is that they invite us to adopt a spectator perspective toward our politics. When we engage with such markets to make profitable bets we are reduced to thinking about what will happen, not about what we think should happen.

In this respect, prediction markets create a problem similar to “horse-race” coverage of politics in the media. When the media focuses on the horse race, they focus our attention on the question of who will win. And they draw our attention away from substantive political questions about what type of world we want to live in. The spectator perspective encouraged by horse-race coverage runs counter to citizens becoming more thoughtful and effective advocates for particular political choices.

Isn’t it still useful to know what’s likely to happen?

I am exaggerating slightly. Being an effective advocate does require being realistic and it is helpful to have some predictive knowledge of what is likely to happen. The problem with “horse-race” style media is that it overemphasizes this element to the detriment of more fundamental questions we need to address to be thoughtful citizen advocates.

Is there a parallel in sports betting?

One might compare this to sports betting as well: This is not the most urgent problem stemming from sports gambling but betting does encourage fans to focus on very concrete outcomes (the ones that will win them their bet) to the exclusion of what we might think a more healthy fan does, namely focusing on their hopes that their team win or that the athletic contest be exciting, or involve high-quality play.