SKN | Reuters Poll Finds Most Americans Oppose Betting on Elections and Government Decisions

Key Points

• A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 69% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans oppose using prediction markets to bet on US election outcomes.
• Opposition also extended to sports betting, with 43% of respondents against wagering on professional sporting events and 29% in favor.
• The growing popularity of platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi has intensified disputes between federal regulators and state authorities over who has the power to oversee prediction markets.

Public opposition to election betting remains substantial in the United States, adding another challenge for prediction market operators as they navigate an increasingly contentious regulatory environment. A new Reuters/Ipsos survey suggests that resistance spans both major political parties, even as platforms offering contracts tied to political and economic outcomes attract greater attention.

The survey of 4,506 adults nationwide, conducted from September 30 through October 5, found that most respondents opposed using prediction markets to wager on US election results. Approximately 69% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans expressed opposition, indicating that concerns about election-related betting are not confined to one political constituency.

The findings arrive as prediction markets face growing scrutiny over whether contracts linked to elections and government decisions should be treated as federally regulated financial products or as gambling activities subject to state laws.

Election Betting Faces Bipartisan Opposition

Platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi allow users to trade contracts linked to the likelihood of future events, including election outcomes and government policy decisions. Supporters argue that market prices can aggregate information and reflect public expectations, while critics question whether allowing people to profit from political outcomes creates unacceptable risks.

The Reuters/Ipsos results indicate that election betting faces resistance from both Democratic and Republican respondents. Although the survey figures do not establish why individuals oppose the practice, the breadth of opposition could complicate efforts to build broader public acceptance of prediction markets.

The debate also extends beyond politics. According to the poll, 43% of respondents opposed betting on professional sports, while 29% supported it. The remaining respondents were not identified in the supplied report as either supporters or opponents.

The results suggest that wagering on public events remains controversial even as prediction markets expand into areas traditionally associated with sports betting and financial trading.

CFTC and States Clash Over Regulatory Authority

The regulatory dispute centers on the respective powers of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and state authorities. The Trump administration is pursuing a federal regulatory approach through the CFTC, while states have challenged the agency’s authority over certain prediction market contracts.

The disagreement has created legal uncertainty for operators seeking to offer event-based contracts across the United States. Depending on how the courts resolve the issue, platforms could face different requirements for market access, product availability and compliance.

The dispute has also raised a broader question about the boundary between derivatives markets and gambling regulation. Federal oversight could provide a more uniform framework for qualifying event contracts, while state regulators have sought to preserve their authority over activities they consider gambling under local law.

Supreme Court Could Decide the Industry’s Future

The legal conflict may ultimately reach the US Supreme Court. On October 8, reporting cited a brief filed by 39 states and the District of Columbia in a case involving Kalshi. The states described the conflict between the CFTC and state authorities as a “national turf war” and argued that Supreme Court intervention was needed to resolve the dispute.

The filing highlights the significance of the jurisdictional question for prediction market operators and regulators. A definitive ruling could clarify the extent of federal authority over event contracts and establish boundaries for state-level enforcement.

However, the filing does not itself determine how the Supreme Court will handle the case or what legal standard it might adopt. The eventual outcome will depend on the proceedings and the court’s interpretation of the relevant law.

Outlook

The Reuters/Ipsos findings point to a public acceptance challenge for prediction markets at a time when their legal status remains contested. Bipartisan opposition to election betting, combined with disagreements over federal and state oversight, could shape how these platforms develop in the coming years. The central question is whether regulators and courts can establish a clear framework that addresses concerns about election-related wagering while defining the permissible scope of event-based financial contracts.