Eh, sounds like the excuse I kept hearing as to why Trump had favorable odds in the last election. Supposedly a foreigner trying to influence our elections, totally not the Democrats kinda not having a candidate. It would be a very expensive (on average) way to probably not make a difference. Cheaper to just buy up some media companies, which do the same thing, saying their preferred candidate is going to win.

Small elections are susceptible to corruption this way, though.

▲

AngryData 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why not both?

▲

dozerly 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There’s been plenty of blatant voter interference, and billions spent influencing American voters, not really seeing where your point is based. More handles to steer democracy with money is not better, period.

	▲	mahboi 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		My point was that it was helpful to get an honest prediction. Is that more important than the risk of someone abusing this, well I think the risk is so low that the answer is yes. There are already such more viable ways to profit off swaying the presidential election that sinking money into Kalshi would just be opportunity cost, and nobody is trying it. But it's not like the law can distinguish between this and a more game-able small town local election.