Most Americans oppose betting on elections: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Public resistance has widened beyond election contracts

The Reuters/Ipsos finding that 60% of Americans oppose betting on election results lands in a market that has grown faster than its public acceptance. Prediction platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket have pushed political contracts into the mainstream, especially after the 2024 presidential campaign turned election markets into high-volume products. Yet the polling record now points to a consistent problem for the sector: many Americans view these contracts less as information tools and more as gambling on civic outcomes.

That skepticism has appeared in several recent surveys. A POLITICO/Public First poll found that 44% of U.S. adults said betting on election outcomes should be unlawful, with similar concerns about markets tied to presidential statements, pardons and other official acts. The survey also found only 6% of respondents had placed bets on prediction markets, though participation was higher among younger adults. The gap between low current usage and high visibility has made prediction markets a political issue before they have become a mass-market habit.

The latest Reuters/Ipsos results also show opposition cutting across party lines, limiting the industry’s ability to frame the debate as partisan. Majorities of Republicans and Democrats opposed election betting, with Democrats more strongly against it. That matters because election contracts sit at the intersection of financial regulation, gambling policy and public trust in democratic institutions. In that space, bipartisan discomfort can quickly translate into congressional pressure.

Sports betting’s own backlash shapes the debate

The resistance to election wagering is developing against a broader reassessment of legalized gambling in the U.S. Sports betting has expanded rapidly since the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision opened the door for states to authorize it, but public sentiment has not moved uniformly in favor of the industry. An Overton Insights poll provided to The Center Square found that more Americans opposed legalized sports wagering than supported it, with 47% against legalization and 31% in favor.

That finding undercuts one of the central assumptions behind gambling expansion: that normalization through legalization and advertising would steadily build voter acceptance. Instead, opposition has remained durable, including among independents and Democrats, while Republicans were closely divided. State-level data cited in the same report showed even stronger resistance in some places, including Wisconsin and Massachusetts.

At the same time, participation continues to grow. A Siena Research Institute survey found that 27% of Americans have an active online sports betting account, up from about 22% in 2025 and 19% in 2024. That split between use and approval has become a defining feature of the U.S. market. Millions of consumers are engaging with sportsbooks while many voters remain uneasy about the social costs, advertising saturation and financial risk tied to gambling products.

Prediction markets now face that same dynamic, but with higher institutional stakes. Betting on games raises consumer protection and integrity concerns. Betting on elections adds questions about voter confidence, misinformation, campaign incentives and the prospect that insiders could profit from nonpublic political information.

Regulators face a classification fight

A central dispute is whether event contracts should be treated as financial instruments or gambling products. Prediction markets operate under the oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, while sports betting is regulated by states and tribal gaming authorities. That split has created a policy opening for platforms offering sports and political contracts without passing through the same licensing regimes that govern sportsbooks.

The American Gaming Association has sought to close that gap by arguing that sports event contracts are plainly gambling. A YouGov survey commissioned by the trade group found that most Americans think prediction markets should be regulated like sports betting. About 80% of respondents said sports event contracts should be subject to the same rules as state-regulated sports betting, and 70% said prediction platforms offering such contracts were exploiting loopholes to act as unlicensed sportsbooks.

The industry dispute is not just semantic. If sports and political event contracts remain primarily under federal commodities oversight, platforms can pursue a national model that bypasses the state-by-state framework used by sportsbooks. If regulators or Congress classify those products as gambling, operators could face licensing obligations, state market exclusions, responsible gambling requirements, advertising rules and tribal compact issues.

That distinction is especially important as platforms broaden their offerings. Sports account for much prediction-market activity, but political contracts have expanded to include elections, government appointments and other public events. Bloomberg analysts have projected political contracts could reach US$266 billion in trading volume by 2030, according to prior reporting on the POLITICO/Public First poll. Such growth would intensify pressure on regulators to define where market-based forecasting ends and gambling begins.

Insider-trading concerns have moved to Congress

The strongest policy threat to prediction markets may come from integrity concerns. Election contracts can draw large volumes because traders believe they can process public information faster than others. But lawmakers have focused on whether some users may also trade on information that is not public, including government, military or corporate information.

Rep. James Comer, chair of the House Oversight Committee, has expanded an inquiry into possible insider trading on prediction markets, seeking information from additional platforms about identity checks, know-your-customer procedures and suspicious activity controls. The committee had already been examining Kalshi and Polymarket, and the broader investigation now includes Hyperliquid Labs, Crypto.com and Aristotle Exchange, owner of PredictIt. The inquiry followed reports and enforcement actions involving suspicious trading behavior, including a U.S. soldier accused of using confidential information to trade on Polymarket and Kalshi’s ban of former Rep. George Santos.

That investigation gives congressional critics a concrete line of attack. Rather than argue only that election betting is distasteful, lawmakers can point to market abuse, conflicts of interest and weak surveillance as risks that require statutory safeguards. Sen. Richard Blumenthal has separately pushed legislation aimed at insider trading, abuse and fraud in prediction markets. Together, those efforts show how a once-niche product has become part of a broader debate over financial integrity and democratic governance.

Platforms have responded by adding compliance measures. Kalshi has said it is strengthening employment verification for customers trading in sensitive markets involving corporate performance or national security. Those steps may help address some regulatory concerns, but they also highlight the burden of operating markets tied to official decisions, elections and security-sensitive events.

The industry’s information argument remains unproven to voters

Prediction-market advocates argue that market prices can aggregate information better than polls, punditry or partisan media. Polymarket has emphasized that many visitors use its markets to view probabilities rather than trade, presenting the platforms as tools for navigating misinformation. The heavy activity around the 2024 election, including US$3.7 billion traded on Polymarket, showed that many users did see value in market-based forecasts.

The political problem is that voters do not appear convinced the informational benefit outweighs the gambling risk. The Reuters/Ipsos poll found only 13% support for election betting, with nearly a quarter unsure. That large undecided share suggests prediction markets are still unfamiliar to many Americans, but the starting point is unfavorable. In public policy terms, an industry that is poorly understood and associated with elections, gambling and insider trading begins at a disadvantage.

The next phase will turn on whether platforms can persuade regulators and the public that event contracts serve a legitimate forecasting function without undermining election trust or state gambling laws. If they cannot, the current wave of polling may become evidence for tighter federal oversight, state restrictions or a narrower definition of permissible contracts. For now, the market is expanding into politics faster than public opinion is moving with it.