In the past two months the American Gaming Association has been leading a well-thought-out effort to expand legal sports betting across the U.S. Through effective use of public opinion (it appears that even President Obama places an occasional sports bet) combined with their already year-long effort against illegal gambling (which includes 97% of all current sport betting), the AGA has created probably the best chance for sports betting to expand beyond Nevada, Oregon, Delaware, and Montana.
While I professionally appreciate the effort, my personal feelings are ambivalent. Many of my closest friends in the gaming industry are managing casinos which are totally centered in Nevada – and they do not want to lose their monopoly. Nor am I much of a sports fan. Especially in the past year my major interest in professional sports has been limited to the halftime show at the Super Bowl and the ads that run during that game.
So what is my off-job passion? Politics! I love politics! I read political sections of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal every day, together with a daily dosage of the PBS NewsHour. On Facebook I have developed a group of friends (across the political spectrum) who enjoy debating the political developments of the day (or at least reading my opinions of those developments). And, of course, every four years (and especially this year) I am in totally ecstasy, particularly because it looks like one of my favorite candidates will win the White House.
So while I have truly mixed emotions toward expanded sports betting, if Geoff Freeman and company were to announce a similar effort to legalize election wagering, they would have every personal and professional resource I could offer at their command. And not just because I love politics, but because I feel that legal election wagering in the United States would be a very good thing.
Today, unlike the situation in the United Kingdom and much of the world, casino and betting parlors in the U.S. cannot offer or accept bets on elections. There are several American sites that offer “free” bets (which is the equivalent of a straw poll), and there are two academic sites, the Iowa Electronic Markets and Predict It, that do accept wagers, but both limit the number of participants as well as the total amount wagered to less than $1,000. (Foreign sites such as PaddyPower and Betfair do not accept American participation.)
In Nevada, State Sen. Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) proposed a bill in 2014 to allow betting on Federal Elections but it fell on deaf ears. According to Sen. Greg Brower (R-Reno) ““Frankly, I think that something as important as elections, as opposed to games, should not be the subject of wagering in our state.”
So, other than satisfying Jeffrey Compton’s personal preference, why should election betting be legalized in the United States?
It would increase election interest and possibly turnout!
Only 50% of eligible U.S. voters actually vote in Presidential elections – and the percentage is even worse for mid-term and off-year elections. Because of this, according to some political scientists, both parties are now marketing to their “base” as opposed to the general electorate, which has led to serious polarization in Washington. By contrast, countries with legalized election betting have considerably higher turnout (Belgium – 87%, New Zealand – 73%, United Kingdom – 68%).
I’m not saying that increased turnout is due primarily to the availability of legal election betting, but the mere presence of it increases the percentage of the population who take an interest. That interest goes beyond just voting: some people will do considerable research to improve their chances. And I am willing to bet that for many participants an increased interest in politics soon overtakes any monetary importance.
Betting on elections is safer than betting on sports
As Sheldon Adelson and Jeb Bush have discovered, large amounts of money can make little difference in the outcome of an election. Unlike a sports events, one or two people can’t be paid to influence an election outcome in the U.S. (In other countries where money is spent to directly change election results, the spenders usually have a lot more at stake than a bet.)
Odds tables and betting lines are considerably more accurate than polls, and certainly the press
I am writing this article on Saturday, listening to CNN in the background as the network tries to create some suspense about the voting in the South Carolina Democratic primary. Anyone who has followed that election reasonably closely (that includes Bernie Sanders) has known for the last several weeks that South Carolina will be a Hillary Clinton blowout. (PerdictIt gave odds for a South Carolina Clinton victory at 99-1.) Yet in order to attract viewers, CNN and others throughout the last few days have tried to make it a “contest” – Hillary would win but perhaps by less than 10 percentage points.
The press on both sides of the pond frequently tries to portray certain elections and other controversies as “close” or ‘possible” while the betting sites show these questions often involve long odds:
Will Angela Merkal last through 2016? (Yes 4-1)
Will Apple be held in contempt by March 31st? (No 15-1)
Will the UK Exit the EU? (No 3-1)
Will Hillary Clinton face charges in 2016? (No 3-1)
Will Caitlyn Jenner speak at the Republican Convention? (No 15-1)
Betting sites are aren’t always accurate, of course (last August they favored Jeb Bush as the Republican nominee, for example), but I am much more confident in “skin-in-the-game” results as opposed to the polls or the story lines put out by mass media. People may lie to a pollster or a reporter, but they won’t lie to their bookie.
So what are the betting predictions for the upcoming Super Tuesday races?
• Trump will win Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia (Minnesota will be a close race)
• Cruz will win Texas
• Clinton will win Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia (Massachusetts and Minnesota will be close races)
• Sanders will win Vermont
And down the road:
• Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee (there is no clear betting choice for his running mate)
• Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee (the leading choice for a running mate is Julian Castro)
• Hillary Clinton will win the election but not by a landslide.
Plus this political junkie will be glued to his television and IPad for several months to come – and loving every minute.
You can bet on it!
