Americans Oppose Election Prediction Markets, Poll Finds

A recent survey by U.K. polling firm Public First found 44% of Americans say betting on election outcomes should be illegal, while 30% said it should be legal. The survey asked respondents about a range of prediction market contracts.

Respondents showed stronger support for nonpolitical markets. Fifty-three percent said sports-event contracts should be legal and 23% said they should be illegal. Weather-related contracts drew 46% support for legality and 24% opposition. Award-show contracts recorded similar levels of support.

Opinion shifted when questions involved politics or national security. Contracts tied to presidential pardons saw 43% oppose legality and 25% support it. Forty percent opposed markets based on comments by the president or news outlets, while 27% supported them. Betting on the outcome of wars prompted 57% opposition, and 64% opposed markets involving acts of terrorism.

Views on prediction markets overall were mixed. Twenty-nine percent called the growing popularity of prediction markets a negative development, 19% viewed it positively, 28% said it was neither positive nor negative, and 24% were unsure. More than half of respondents said they would not consider placing a wager in a prediction market.

Trading volumes for political contracts have risen as operators expanded offerings. Nearly $700 million has traded on 2028 presidential election markets across Kalshi and Polymarket’s international platform, and the 2024 U.S. presidential election generated more than $3.6 billion in volume on Polymarket’s international platform. Industry analysts have estimated political and public policy markets could account for roughly 27% of trading volume by 2030, up from about 10% in early 2025, and projected such markets could generate roughly $266 billion in annual trading volume by 2030.

Legislative and regulatory activity has increased. More than 25 prediction market-related bills have been introduced at the federal level this year. Proposed measures vary: some would ban election-related or sports-event contracts, others would bar participation by elected officials and government insiders. Two federal proposals would broadly prohibit categories of contracts tied to elections, government actions and military conflicts. At the state level, Minnesota enacted a statewide ban on a wide range of prediction market contracts; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Kalshi and Polymarket have filed lawsuits challenging that law. Tennessee enacted criminal penalties for insider trading and market manipulation in prediction markets.

Operators, regulators and courts are addressing questions about policing insiders, defining prohibited contracts and how state and federal oversight should apply.