US Politics

Yep, my stance also. If you've got no way of influencing the outcome I can't see how it'd be a conflict of interest. Just a way of softening the blow when you don't get the outcome you want.

Maybe, I can see that backing him might be stretching one's principles.

In my case, I'm pretty comfortable with the fact that I don't support him at all. I can't see a way that doing so would influence the outcome either, so I'm ok with it.

Hmm an interesting 'moral maze' as they say.

Would be interesting to see if people that did win money from his re-election would be willing to donate some / all of it to support things that he has been against e.g. BLM, pro-choice, climate change campaigners.

Kind of like that German town that turned a permitted Neo-Nazi march into a sponsored walkathon raising money for an organisation that helps people leave extremist groups.

Donate your winnings to the next Democrat campaign, problem solved

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?

The main thing I'm worried about with the American elections is whether there is any covert manipulation going on in the actual electoral system. I hope there isn't and that this isn't possible, but we've heard about all the postal stuff. Are there other ways of manipulating votes, e.g. by hacking voting machines?

As for popular opinion, I have no idea what's really going on on the ground.

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.

John Oliver did a piece on American voting machines. They are not secure at all.

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

Yes, I think you're right here that that amount would be problematic. But I think we'd probably be discussing symptoms of a gambling problem at that point rather than conflicts of interets (which I don't think this is) - i.e. that you'd bet an amount where the outcome mattered sufficient to flex your beliefs.

I think the counter argument is that you have literally no way of influencing the vote. You wanting him to win more has no effect, and bet or no bet the outcome will be the same. A conflict of interests is defined as 'a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.'. In this case, none of your actions or decisions can directly and definitely result in personal benefit. The act of placing the bet does not affect the outcome.

I agree that the moral side of it feels a bit iffy, because you would end up 'celebrating' Trump winning. And it does make me a little bit sad to accept that making money off an awful situation is so readily within our reach.

Edit: and obviously nothing new for humanity - Kodak sold film to the Nazis throughout the war, even opening a branch in Switzerland to avoid breaking trade embargoes.

Most countries steer well clear of electronic voting machines for precisely this reason.

I think in some way you have to accept that betting does influence an outcome. To what extent or in which direction is far harder to determine.

I only bet on things where there seems to be an emotional or other bias in the market. It happens a lot with home fighting boxers, a UK fighter in a UK betting market will be better value than a foreign fighter.

Yes, I saw something a while back in which someone dismantled old voting machines that were being sold on-line (I think?) with all the data still on their hard disk. They were just old PCs in some kind of arcade machine body. It's pretty frightening. I'll try to find that again ...

Loads of articles, as it turns out:

https://www.wired.com/story/i-bought-used-voting-machines-on-ebay/

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54378960

Cory Doctorow’s comment is correct:

Voting machines are terrible in every way: the companies that make them lie like crazy about their security, insist on insecure designs, and produce machines that are so insecure that it’s easier to hack a voting machine than it is to use it to vote.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/11/buying_used_vot.html

So, you do wonder what impact this is going to have. Surely it must already have been a factor in previous elections? The only saving grace is that US states all have very different systems, and I don't think they use voting machines everywhere, but that doesn't make manipulation impossible.

There certainly seem to be subset of people who vote a certain way because they think that choice will win.

Betting changes odds which are often used (incorrectly) to predict winners by commentators.

This is certainly true.
I’d imagine there might also be apathy and motivation for some others.

Indeed.

There certainly seem to be subset of people who vote a certain way because they think that choice will win.

That is a depressingly likely issue

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?

Betting on anything supports the gambling industry.

Cutting through the ethical Gordian Knot.

Am I not compromised?

Not if you have no influence on the outcome. Morally you may be conflicted but no conflict of interest.

Of course, but like I said, if I bet £1000 on Trump at 4/1 (and no bet the other way) and it came down to the wire - I'd want Trump to win at that point. Am I not compromised?

No. It will have no effect on the outcome. You might be emotionally conflicted, but that's your problem, not anyone else's.

But as I outlined above., the cumulative effect of betting may influence the outcome.

I think that's a narrow, individualistic and perhaps lawyer's view of conflict of interest, to be honest.

It's almost like the term "conflict of interest" has a meaning which is narrowly defined with legal implications.

I think the argument that odds may have an impact similar to polls is worth thinking about, but I suspect odds are based on polls, and people's decisions in terms of whether or not to vote are more likely to be influenced by polls than odds. But I'll concede there is room for the odds given for a bet impacting some people's actions.

The ethical side is also interesting, but not a conflict of interest issue. #WWKantD.

#WWKantD

#WWKD

1 Attachment