Polymarket, Kalshi: Americans say no to betting on elections

Consensus around political betting. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll published on October 12, 69% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans surveyed oppose betting on US election results. This convergence comes as Polymarket and Kalshi develop their markets and a legal conflict pits the federal authorities against the states over their supervision.

Key Points

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted among 4,506 adults, reveals majority opposition to electoral betting in both political camps.

Bets on military operations and government decisions also attract marked rejection.

Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia support a request for Supreme Court review in a case between New Jersey and Kalshi.

Americans mostly reject betting on elections

The survey, carried out online from September 30 to October 5, measures the acceptability of several categories of bets. The election results arouse majority opposition among both Democratic and Republican respondents, despite their political differences.

The rejection extends to government affairs. 65% of respondents oppose betting on US military actions, compared to 8% in favor. For public policy announcements and decisions, opposition reaches 63%, while support is limited to 9%.

Professional sports betting encounters less resistance, but the opponents remain more numerous than the supporters: 43% against 29%. This difference therefore does not allow us to conclude that there is majority support for sport, nor that there is a uniform rejection of all market categories.

These platforms allow you to buy and sell contracts whose payment depends on the completion of an event. Their defenders present prices in particular as an indicator of participants' expectations. However, 75% of respondents equate this activity to gambling, according to Reuters. Kalshi, for her part, contests the framing of the investigation, which she considers biased.

The survey thus provides information on public opinion. It does not measure either the reliability of the forecasts produced by these markets or their legal compliance.

Kalshi at the heart of the conflict between federal regulation and state powers

In the legal field, the question concerns the competent authority to supervise these contracts. The platforms invoke federal supervision by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC. Several States, on the contrary, defend their prerogatives in matters of gambling, particularly for sports contracts.

In Flaherty v. KalshiEX, docket 26-299, New Jersey authorities are asking the Supreme Court to review a decision by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Ohio, 38 other states, and the District of Columbia filed a brief of support (amicus curiae brief) in support of this request.

These states describe a national conflict of jurisdiction, fueled by divergent judicial decisions. They are asking the justices to clarify the extent to which federal law overrides their own rules on betting.

The filing of this request does not mean, however, that the Supreme Court has agreed to judge the case. The brief constitutes an argument in favor of its intervention, without prejudging its decision.