U.S.
Poll finds broad opposition to betting on elections and government decisions
The probability-based poll found opposition across party lines, while three-quarters said wagering on real-world events is gambling. It measured opinion, not support for a specific ban or rule.
Executive summary
- Most oppose election wagers: In a Reuters/Ipsos survey of 4,506 U.S. adults, 60% opposed using prediction markets to wager money on U.S. election results, 13% supported it and 24% were not sure. Opposition reached 69% among Democrats and 61% among Republicans.[1][2]
- Military and policy bets drew similar resistance: The Ipsos topline recorded 65% opposition to wagers on U.S. military actions and 63% opposition to bets on government policy announcements or decisions. Support was 8% and 9%, respectively.[1][2]
- Most respondents called event wagering gambling: Seventy-five percent said using prediction markets to wager on real-world events is a form of gambling; 8% said it is not and 14% were unsure. Seven percent said they had personally wagered through a prediction market.[1][2][3]
- The survey did not test a specific regulation: The findings describe attitudes toward wagering on broad categories of events, not support for a particular bill, ban, or regulatory framework. Fortune reported that Kalshi criticized the wording and said the poll did not measure respondents' familiarity with prediction markets.[1][3]
Six in 10 U.S. adults opposed using prediction markets to wager money on election results, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Oct. 12. Thirteen percent supported such wagers and 24% were unsure. In the poll's party breakdown, 69% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans opposed election betting.[1][2]
The objection extended beyond elections. Sixty-five percent opposed prediction-market wagers on U.S. military actions and 63% opposed bets on government policy announcements or decisions. Only 8% and 9%, respectively, supported those categories. Opposition to wagers on professional sports was lower at 43%, while 29% supported them, according to the Ipsos topline.[1][2]
Three-quarters of respondents said wagering through prediction markets on real-world events is a form of gambling. Seven percent said they had ever used one to wager money. The results show a gap between the visibility of event-market prices and reported participation, but the survey does not explain why people have or have not used the products.[1][2][3]
Ipsos conducted the online survey from Sept. 30 through Oct. 5 using its probability-based KnowledgePanel. Its sample included 4,506 U.S. adults and was weighted to demographic and political benchmarks. Ipsos gives a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 1.5 percentage points for results from the full adult sample; error is larger for subgroups. The party comparisons therefore have more uncertainty than the headline national estimates.[4][1]
The questionnaire first defined prediction markets as allowing people to wager money on real-world events, then asked separately about elections, military actions, government policy decisions and sports. It did not ask whether respondents knew how the markets work. Kalshi called the poll biased in a statement to Fortune and said the question framing was leading; the company also said it does not offer markets on war. That response is relevant context, though the poll asked about a general category of wagers rather than Kalshi's product specifically.[1][3]
The polling does not establish that Americans want a ban or favor one regulator over another. Reuters described it as evidence that the industry may lack broad public support as policymakers debate oversight. Fortune reported that prediction-market prices are being added to television news coverage, including a CBS News partnership with Kalshi. Public sentiment, market activity and the legal status of individual contracts are separate questions.[2][3]