Comment Text:
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) proposed rule that would classify election futures markets, such as those operated by PredictIt, as "gaming." This classification is fundamentally flawed and undermines the valuable role that these markets play in our democratic process.
Election futures markets are not akin to gambling. When individuals participate in markets like PredictIt, they engage in sophisticated analysis and forecasting, akin to the work of professional analysts. These markets aggregate diverse perspectives and information, producing forecasts that are often more accurate than traditional polls or expert predictions. This is because they harness the collective wisdom of informed participants who use their knowledge, experience, and intuition to make predictions.
As someone who is not a professional political trader but values the ability to engage in these markets, I have witnessed firsthand how this platform allows everyday individuals to apply their knowledge and insights to predict political outcomes. This is far from a simple game of chance. It involves continuous monitoring of news, evaluating the credibility of information, understanding historical voting patterns, and making reasoned judgments about future events. These activities are inherently analytical and reflective of a genuine investment of time and intellect, rather than mere gambling.
It is particularly concerning that while pundits and analysts can appear on networks like CNBC and Fox Business to influence stock prices and potentially benefit from their positions, ordinary citizens are being denied a similar opportunity in the realm of political futures markets. The proposed rule would unfairly restrict individuals from leveraging their understanding of political events to make informed trades, thus depriving them of the benefits that come from their knowledge and analysis.
Furthermore, election futures markets serve a public good. They provide real-time data and forecasts that are invaluable to the media, policymakers, and the public. By offering a dynamic and accurate picture of potential election outcomes, they enhance the transparency and understanding of political processes.
The proposed rule by the CFTC would not only mischaracterize the nature of these markets but would also stifle this important source of information and public engagement. The classification of election futures as "gaming" dismisses the sophisticated, informed decision-making that characterizes these markets and ignores their proven track record of accuracy and utility.
I urge the CFTC to reconsider this proposal and recognize the significant differences between speculative gambling and the informed trading conducted in election futures markets. The decision to restrict these markets would be a disservice to the many individuals who rely on them for valuable insights and would diminish the overall quality of information available to the public.
Please take into account the voices of those of us who have experienced firsthand the benefits and rigor of participating in election futures markets. Your decision will have a profound impact on the availability and quality of electoral information, and it is crucial to approach this matter with a full understanding of its implications.
Thank you for considering my perspective.
Sincerely,
Ross Berry
