I realize ‘Manifold questions with poor resolution criteria’ is something of a repeated subject from me, but I think it’s worth noting how perverse this criteria is. If traders are behaving rationally, for this contract to be trading at 30% implies 70% confidence that… the 2028 election will be more democratically legitimate than the 2000 election? As far as I can see, this market pricing is perfectly compatible with:
70% of being more democratically legitimate as a perfectly fine presidential election
30% of being equally legitimate to a perfectly fine presidential election
To the extent that you use the word ‘coup’ in a very expansive way that is not shared by most people, you should probably explicitly signpost this. The rest of your comment doesn’t really follow as a result… why should SCOTUS deciding than you can’t do cherry-picked county recounts create an incentive to rush to a strategic decisive advantage? The Absence of AGI was not an issue to the ruling back in 2000.
I appreciate you looking into the resolution criteria, because they matter. And yes, partisan SCOTUS rulings being included muddles the evidence somewhat. That said, I don’t think it’s that misleading because
Trump tried something arguably coup-like but it fails (25%, n=44) and the linked “Trump remains in office” is 15% (n=43), putting the total attempt probability at 40%. Other markets put success at lower rates though, which seems more realistic.
In hindsight I would’ve referenced the Manifold poll resolution.
I recommend everyone in this thread looking at the US Democracy topic on Manifold which I have added all relevant questions to that I could find (and also look elsewhere, e.g. Metaculus, which has much fewer questions but arguably better incentives for long-term questions)
P.S.
I also have a separate question for specifically a controversial SCOTUS ruling in favor of Republicans but it doesn’t have enough traders.
I realize ‘Manifold questions with poor resolution criteria’ is something of a repeated subject from me, but I think it’s worth noting how perverse this criteria is. If traders are behaving rationally, for this contract to be trading at 30% implies 70% confidence that… the 2028 election will be more democratically legitimate than the 2000 election? As far as I can see, this market pricing is perfectly compatible with:
70% of being more democratically legitimate as a perfectly fine presidential election
30% of being equally legitimate to a perfectly fine presidential election
To the extent that you use the word ‘coup’ in a very expansive way that is not shared by most people, you should probably explicitly signpost this. The rest of your comment doesn’t really follow as a result… why should SCOTUS deciding than you can’t do cherry-picked county recounts create an incentive to rush to a strategic decisive advantage? The Absence of AGI was not an issue to the ruling back in 2000.
I appreciate you looking into the resolution criteria, because they matter. And yes, partisan SCOTUS rulings being included muddles the evidence somewhat. That said, I don’t think it’s that misleading because
Will Manifold think Trump made a serious about to remain in charge? (35%, n=26, would be ~26% without my bets). Resolves via Manifold poll
Trump tried something arguably coup-like but it fails (25%, n=44) and the linked “Trump remains in office” is 15% (n=43), putting the total attempt probability at 40%. Other markets put success at lower rates though, which seems more realistic.
In hindsight I would’ve referenced the Manifold poll resolution.
I recommend everyone in this thread looking at the US Democracy topic on Manifold which I have added all relevant questions to that I could find (and also look elsewhere, e.g. Metaculus, which has much fewer questions but arguably better incentives for long-term questions)
P.S.
I also have a separate question for specifically a controversial SCOTUS ruling in favor of Republicans but it doesn’t have enough traders.