Most Americans Oppose Election Betting as Prediction Markets Face Regulatory Pressure

A majority of Americans oppose using prediction markets to wager on US elections, military actions and government policy decisions, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll published on October 12, 2026. The findings raise questions about the long-term public acceptance of a fast-growing industry that includes platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi.

The survey, conducted from September 30 to October 5 among 4,506 US adults, found that 60% opposed betting on US election results. Opposition extended across party lines: 69% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans said they opposed election betting. The results suggest that the industry's expansion is running ahead of broad public approval.

The debate has implications beyond gambling. Prediction markets allow users to trade contracts linked to future events, with payouts determined by whether a specified outcome occurs. Supporters argue that the resulting prices can aggregate information and offer insight into what people expect to happen. Critics question whether turning elections and government decisions into tradable contracts creates ethical problems or incentives for manipulation.

For investors and businesses following the sector, the central question is whether prediction markets can expand while earning public trust and resolving disputes over how they should be regulated.

What the Reuters/Ipsos Poll Found

Opposition was especially strong when the contracts involved government actions rather than entertainment or sport.

According to the survey, 65% of Americans opposed prediction-market betting on US military actions, while 63% opposed wagers on government policy announcements or decisions. Only 8% supported betting on military actions and 9% supported betting on government policy decisions.

Views on sports betting were more divided. Forty-three percent opposed using prediction markets to bet on professional sports, while 29% supported it. That contrast suggests people may distinguish between wagering on sporting events and placing money on decisions that affect national security, democratic processes or public policy.

The poll also found broad discomfort with the idea of treating real-world events as betting opportunities. Three-quarters of respondents agreed that using prediction markets to wager on real-world outcomes constitutes gambling, while only 8% disagreed.

The findings measure public opinion, not the legality of any particular market. They also do not establish that prediction markets have caused insider trading or manipulation. Those concerns are part of the wider regulatory debate, rather than proof that misconduct has occurred in every market.

Why Prediction Markets Are Under Scrutiny

Prediction markets have expanded beyond traditional financial and sporting events. Users can take positions on election results, interest-rate decisions, government announcements and geopolitical developments.

Platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket argue that their markets can provide useful signals about the likelihood of future events. They also say they have controls intended to prevent misconduct and that certain contracts can help users manage risks linked to real-world outcomes.

The concern is that contracts linked to government decisions may create incentives that go beyond ordinary speculation. A person with access to confidential information about a military operation, for example, could potentially have an unfair advantage in a market tied to that event. There are also concerns about market manipulation, the spread of misleading information and whether financial incentives could undermine public confidence in democratic institutions.

These are risks regulators must assess. Their significance depends on the market's design, available information, surveillance controls and the rules governing participation.

The poll adds a political dimension to the debate: even if a platform complies with applicable rules, widespread public opposition could create pressure for tighter restrictions or more explicit safeguards.

The Regulatory Battle: Financial Products or Gambling?

A major dispute concerns which authorities should oversee prediction markets and what legal framework should apply.

The Trump administration has supported federal oversight through the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which regulates US derivatives markets. State regulators, meanwhile, argue that some event contracts function like gambling and should be subject to state gambling laws. The disagreement has led to legal challenges and could ultimately require clarification by higher courts.

The distinction matters because federal derivatives regulation and state gambling regulation can impose different requirements on platforms. Those requirements may affect which contracts can be offered, how companies monitor trading, what protections users receive and how platforms operate across state lines.

A stricter regulatory approach could raise compliance costs and limit some categories of contracts. Clearer rules, however, could also benefit operators by reducing legal uncertainty and making it easier to determine which markets can be offered lawfully.

The poll itself does not determine the outcome of this legal battle. Public opinion can influence political debate, but the governing legal framework will depend on statutes, regulatory decisions and court rulings.

What the Findings Mean for Kalshi, Polymarket and the Industry

For prediction-market operators, the results point to a potential gap between commercial growth and public acceptance. Advertising, new products and increased media attention can attract users, but they do not necessarily resolve concerns about the ethics of wagering on elections or government actions.

Three developments are worth monitoring.

Regulatory restrictions: Limits on political or military contracts could affect the range of products available and the revenue opportunities associated with them.

Compliance costs: Platforms may need to invest more in surveillance, identity verification, reporting systems and safeguards against trading based on confidential information. These measures can increase costs, particularly for companies expanding quickly.

Public trust and partnerships: Broadcasters, advertisers and other commercial partners may have to weigh the usefulness of prediction-market data against reputational concerns. Wider adoption could depend on how clearly platforms explain their rules and address complaints.

The long-term commercial outlook is not necessarily negative. If prediction markets demonstrate reliable safeguards and operate under clearer rules, they could continue to develop as a source of information about expectations surrounding future events. But growth in trading activity alone would not prove that the business model has achieved broad social acceptance.

For investors, the key distinction is between demand for a product and the regulatory permission to offer it. A market can attract considerable attention while still facing legal, reputational and operational risks.

What Investors and Businesses Should Watch Next

The next phase of the debate will depend on regulatory decisions, court cases and how platforms respond to concerns about political and government-related contracts.

Investors evaluating businesses connected to prediction markets should look for evidence of sustainable revenue, effective compliance systems and a clear understanding of the legal limits on their products. They should also distinguish between a platform's own claims about forecasting accuracy and independent evidence that its prices provide useful predictive information.

The Reuters/Ipsos survey is a snapshot of US public opinion, not a forecast of future industry revenue or a verdict on the legality of individual contracts. Its significance lies in showing that opposition extends across party lines and is particularly strong for military and government events.

Conclusion

The Reuters/Ipsos poll found that most Americans oppose using prediction markets to bet on elections, military actions and government policy decisions. That resistance creates a challenge for an industry seeking broader adoption while regulators debate whether its contracts belong under financial-market rules, gambling laws or a more clearly defined framework.

The key developments to watch are upcoming regulatory and court decisions, safeguards against misuse of confidential information, and whether prediction-market operators can build public trust without losing their commercial momentum. Follow the blog for more business, finance and global market updates.

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice.