Most US Consumers Reject Election And Government Bets On Prediction Markets
A recent nationwide survey reveals that a clear majority of US adults oppose the use of prediction markets for wagering on elections and other government-related events, even as these platforms expand rapidly and draw regulatory scrutiny.
The research findings, from a Reuters/Ipsos poll, highlight bipartisan unease at a time when platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi offer contracts on political outcomes, policy moves, military developments, and sports, prompting debates over whether the activity amounts to gambling or legitimate financial trading.
The online survey, conducted from September 30 through October 5, 2026, reached 4,506 US adults and carried a margin of error of roughly two percentage points.
Overall, about 60 percent of respondents said they opposed using prediction markets to place money on U.S. election results, while 13 percent supported the idea and roughly a quarter remained unsure.
Opposition crossed party lines, with 69 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of Republicans expressing disapproval.
Resistance proved even stronger for contracts tied to national security and official decisions.
Sixty-five percent of adults opposed betting on US military actions, and 63 percent opposed wagers on government policy announcements or decisions; support stood at only 8 percent and 9 percent, respectively.
Even markets on professional sports drew more opposition than backing, with 43 percent against them compared with 29 percent in favor.
Three-quarters of respondents viewed placing bets on real-world events through these platforms as a form of gambling, while just 8 percent disagreed.
Only about 7 percent reported ever having used a prediction market to wager money.
Concerns about potential conflicts of interest ran especially high. Ninety-three percent of Democrats and 89 percent of Republicans considered it inappropriate for members of Congress or their staff to bet on political events.
One poll participant, a Democrat from Detroit, told Reuters that the platforms should face the same regulations as traditional gambling because, despite claims otherwise, the activity is gambling.
The industry has grown quickly.
Led by Polymarket and Kalshi, these markets allow users to trade contracts that pay out based on event outcomes.
Operators maintain that they maintain strong safeguards against misconduct, regularly refer suspicious activity to authorities, and often produce more accurate forecasts than conventional polls while offering hedging tools for unusual risks.
Kalshi, for instance, prohibits trading on military operations and bars candidates from betting on their own races.
The Senate earlier barred its members, staff, and certain officers from using the platforms, and Democratic lawmakers have advanced measures seeking tighter limits amid worries about insider trading, manipulation, and effects on public trust or national security.
Regulatory friction continues.
The Trump administration has pursued federal oversight through the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), treating the contracts as financial instruments.
Multiple states have challenged that approach, arguing the products resemble unlicensed gambling subject to state rules; some observers expect the jurisdictional clash to reach the Supreme Court.
Industry advocates note that many voters prefer a single federal framework over inconsistent state rules.
Despite heavy marketing and rising trading volumes—especially around elections—the poll suggests limited public appetite for the core political offerings. As midterms approach and platforms keep expanding, the survey adds a clear public-opinion dimension to ongoing legal and policy fights over how, or whether, these markets should operate.
