Poll: Election Betting Draws Opposition Across Party Lines

Most U.S. adults oppose betting on election results, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released October 12. Opposition crossed party lines, with 69% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans against. The poll arrives as prediction-market companies expand, sign deals with news outlets and face a federal-state fight over who regulates them.

Background

Prediction markets let customers trade contracts whose value depends on an event, such as an election result. A contract typically pays a fixed amount if the event happens and nothing if it does not, so its price is an imperfect signal of what traders expect.

Kalshi and Polymarket are the best-known platforms. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) asserts jurisdiction over the contracts as financial products, while state regulators argue they are gambling subject to state law. The Trump administration is pursuing federal regulation, states are resisting, and legal experts expect the dispute to reach the Supreme Court, Reuters reported.

The industry is also gaining mainstream visibility. CBS News said on September 30 that it would add real-time Kalshi prices to its midterm coverage, and Fortune reported that Kalshi has similar arrangements with CNN and CNBC.

What the Poll Found

The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 4,506 U.S. adults online from September 30 to October 5. Fortune reported that 60% oppose election betting, 13% support it and 24% are unsure. Reuters reported that 65% oppose betting on military actions and 63% oppose betting on government policy decisions, and that 8% and 9% respectively support such bets.

About three-quarters said wagering on real-world event outcomes is a form of gambling, and 8% said it is not. Roughly nine in ten Democrats and 89% of Republicans said it is inappropriate for members of Congress or their staff to bet on political events. Professional sports betting drew 43% opposition and 29% support in the same survey. Only 7% of respondents said they had bet money on a prediction market.

Fact-check: Polling measures opinion, not the legal status of contracts. Calling something gambling in a survey does not decide whether federal commodities law or state gambling law applies. Reports also differ on the margin of error (about 2 points in one account, 1.5 in another) and on the Democratic figure for congressional betting (93% in one, 90% in another). This article could not review the full questionnaire wording.

What Different Sides Are Saying

The platforms: Kalshi called the poll biased, saying it used leading questions and did not measure respondents’ familiarity with the markets, according to Fortune. Polymarket said more than 90% of visits to its site are to view markets rather than trade, and described its markets as a source of unbiased information. Both companies say they work with authorities and have restricted misconduct. An industry group, the Coalition for Prediction Markets, says its research shows voters of both parties prefer one federal framework to a patchwork of state rules.

Fact-check: Ipsos had not responded to Kalshi’s criticism when Fortune published, so the dispute over wording is unresolved. Market prices can carry information, but they are not independent polls. An August analysis cited by Fortune found the top 1% of Polymarket wallets accounted for 68% of volume on 2026 congressional markets, and 80% of those markets had fewer than 100 wallets trading. The coalition’s research is industry-sponsored, and this article could not review it.

Critics and some lawmakers: They argue that contracts on elections, military operations and government decisions invite trading on confidential information and attempts to influence outcomes. In April the Senate barred senators and staff from using prediction markets, and several Democrats have introduced bills to restrict the industry. Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, said heavy advertising spending should not be mistaken for public support.

Fact-check: The concerns are not hypothetical. Reuters reported in August that more than 150 accounts on Polymarket International, an overseas market that bars U.S. users, may have traded on inside military information. Kalshi banned former Rep. George Santos, who agreed to pay $35,000 to resolve government allegations of manipulative trading without admitting wrongdoing. Neither case shows misconduct across either company’s U.S. markets. Kalshi does not allow trading on military operations and bars candidates from betting on their own races.

Federal and state regulators: The CFTC treats the contracts as financial products, and state regulators treat them as gambling. Reuters also noted that Donald Trump Jr. has business ties to both Kalshi and Polymarket.

Fact-check: Federal oversight does not mean an absence of rules, and state oversight is not automatically stricter in every respect. Consumer safeguards, market surveillance and enforcement capacity matter more than which label applies.

Why Election Contracts Raise Special Questions

Some government events can be influenced by people who might also trade on the outcome, and an official could know confidential details before the public. Supporters say registration, disclosure and anti-manipulation rules can address those risks, while critics question whether elections and military operations should be tradable at all. Ipsos lead pollster Alec Tyson said respondents “do not see elections or government decision-making as appropriate subjects” for such markets.

Note on Scope

The results describe U.S. adults surveyed from September 30 to October 5, not active traders. The poll is evidence of attitudes, not of market misconduct, and public opinion does not decide which regulatory approach courts and lawmakers adopt. This article does not assume that these contracts are gambling in every jurisdiction or that market odds predict election results.

Discussion Questions

Have you ever used a betting or prediction app? What was the experience like?
Should people be allowed to trade contracts on election outcomes?
How are prediction contracts similar to or different from sports betting?
Do you find Kalshi’s criticism of the poll’s wording convincing? Why or why not?
Should government officials and their staff be barred from trading on decisions they can influence?
Should news outlets show prediction-market odds in election coverage?
Why might the public be more uneasy about betting on elections than on sports?
Should federal or state governments have the main role in regulating these markets?
How much weight should lawmakers give a public-opinion poll when writing financial rules?
Imagine you are a regulator. What rules would you require before allowing contracts on elections?