When Jim Allen, elections director for Delaware County, Pennsylvania, led a recent training session for poll workers, he addressed an issue that had never before appeared on the agenda: prediction markets. “One person stood up and said, ‘Why don’t we make a little bet on voter turnout to make things more interesting?’ We told them, ‘No, this is completely inappropriate,’” said Allen, who oversees elections across 383 precincts.
In response, Allen and the Delaware County Board of Elections amended the affidavit signed by election officials. The updated document includes a commitment that workers have “no direct or indirect interest in any gambling, gaming or prediction markets.”
About 2,500 people—including full-time election staff and temporary workers who help process ballots on Election Day—signed the updated oath ahead of November’s midterm elections.
“The rapid growth of prediction markets and their efforts to profit from elections pose a direct threat to public confidence in election results,” Allen told WIRED. “The greatest concern is that prediction markets could create financial incentives to manipulate outcomes. It is equally troubling that these markets may intensify the anger and frustration of people who lose money.”
Prediction Markets Raise Growing Election Concerns
With fewer than 100 days remaining before the midterm elections—and as President Donald Trump and members of his administration continue challenging public trust in American democracy—WIRED spoke with election officials nationwide about the risk that prediction markets could further complicate Election Day.
Last week’s Wisconsin gubernatorial primary illustrated the potential disconnect between prediction market odds and actual election results. Both Kalshi and Polymarket listed progressive candidate Francesca Hong as the favorite until vote counting began, highlighting the mismatch between market predictions and how the race ultimately unfolded. Traditional public opinion polls also missed the mark. Election officials worry that voters may treat market odds as guarantees and place bets based on misplaced confidence. They also fear prediction markets could contribute to hostility toward poll workers and other election officials—behavior some officials say they are already witnessing.
Dean Logan, county clerk for Los Angeles County—the nation’s most populous voting jurisdiction—said prediction markets had “a huge impact on the post-election swings in June.” Speaking during a webinar organized by the Large Election Jurisdiction Partnership, Logan said the markets contributed to intimidation and aggression from election observers and others with a financial or personal stake in the results. “It’s something we definitely saw, and we saw it at a level we haven’t seen in any previous election,” he said.
“Let me be clear: Threatening election officials or poll workers is a crime, and Kalshi condemns it in the strongest terms,” said Kalshi spokesperson Jackie McGavick.
Both Kalshi and Polymarket told WIRED that they would not permit their platforms to be used to speculate about whether violence or riots would occur at polling places.
Election officials also repeatedly raised concerns that voters may misunderstand what prediction market odds actually represent. Recent research from the Large Election Jurisdiction Partnership supports those concerns. The survey found that 75% of respondents could not accurately explain what prediction market odds meant, while 35% mistakenly believed the odds represented counted votes or official forecasts from state election officials.
“Prediction markets are a form of speculation, but they are increasingly presented—and sometimes interpreted—as indicators of likely election outcomes,” Logan told WIRED. “The problem is that many people do not distinguish between markets that reflect the views of participants and the formal electoral process.”
Source: www.wired.com