-
It is literally a conflict of interests though.
It's not a conflict of interest as your bets, or desires, have no impact on the election or results. Any interest in the election is as a spectator - same as a football match. Because the outcome of the election is much more important doesn't change this.
I still wouldn't do it, though. Betting is a mug's game.
-
I think that's a narrow, individualistic and perhaps lawyer's view of conflict of interest, to be honest.
Football spectators do have an influence (and there are controls against it, e.g. finals are held on neutral ground). Imagine if the home crowd in the stadium start cheering for the opposition, or if one team learns at half time that odds against them are dramatically falling, indicating no-one's betting on their win.
Political candidates focus their last-minute campaigning efforts on swing constituencies, and that swing could be measured in financial bets as well as polls (presumably there are some controls on bookies selling localised betting data?)
Is the influence absolutely infinitesimal in this election for someone placing a £20 bet in the UK? Of course, but how big does my bet need to be before I'm ethically compromised?
chez_jay
It is literally a conflict of interests though.
I did mention hedging (e.g. if you had a larger bet the other way - and while I guess you could say you stand to 'lose' if Trump wins, it's not a direct financial loss). Yes, a small bet of £20 is neither here or there. But what if I bet £1000 on Trump at 4/1 (and no bet the other way) and it came down to the wire - who would I want to win at that point?