Reuters/Ipsos Poll Finds 60% of U.S. Adults Oppose Election Betting

Meta description: Reuters/Ipsos found 60% of U.S. adults oppose election betting, complicating the politics around Kalshi and Polymarket.

Tags: Reuters/Ipsos, Kalshi, Polymarket, CFTC, George Santos, Election Markets

market_platform: none-if-cross-platform

category: Regulation

A Reuters/Ipsos poll published October 12 found that 60% of U.S. adults oppose using prediction markets to wager on U.S. election results. The survey of 4,506 adults, conducted September 30 to October 5, also found 65% opposition to betting on U.S. military actions and 63% opposition to betting on government policy decisions.

The numbers arrive as prediction-market operators try to push election odds further into mainstream political coverage, while state regulators and some lawmakers argue that event contracts resemble gambling. The poll does not resolve the legal fight over federal preemption, but it shows a clear public-opinion gap between sports betting and contracts tied to elections, military action or government decisions.

What did the Reuters/Ipsos poll find about election betting?

Reuters reported that 60% of respondents opposed letting people use prediction markets to bet on U.S. elections. Only 13% supported it, while 24% said they were unsure. Opposition crossed party lines: 69% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans opposed election wagering, according to Reuters.

The survey showed stronger resistance to contracts tied to government action beyond elections. Sixty-five percent opposed betting on U.S. military actions, and 63% opposed betting on government policy announcements or decisions. Support for those categories was in single digits, at 8% for military actions and 9% for government policy decisions, Reuters reported.

Respondents were less opposed to professional sports betting. Reuters reported that 43% opposed wagering on professional sports, while 29% favored it. That distinction matters for exchanges and brokers expanding sports event contracts, because it suggests voters distinguish between betting on games and betting on elections, military action or government decisions.

Do Americans consider prediction markets gambling?

Yes. Reuters reported that 75% of respondents said wagering on prediction markets is a form of gambling, while 8% disagreed. Fortune, covering the same poll, reported that 7% of respondents said they had used prediction markets to bet money.

That finding goes directly to the central framing dispute around federally regulated event contracts. Kalshi and Polymarket’s U.S. operations argue that event contracts are regulated financial instruments under the Commodity Exchange Act and fall under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s jurisdiction. State gaming regulators and attorneys general have argued in court and enforcement actions that similar products should be treated as gambling under state law.

The CFTC has taken enforcement action within that federal framework. On July 31, 2026, the agency said former Republican congressman George Santos agreed to pay a $35,000 civil monetary penalty to resolve allegations that he engaged in wash sales on a Kalshi market tied to whether he would attend the 2026 State of the Union address. Santos’ lawyers said he did not intend to deceive anyone.

Should members of Congress be allowed to bet on political events?

Almost no one in the Reuters/Ipsos survey supported that idea. Reuters reported that roughly nine in 10 Democrats and 89% of Republicans said it was inappropriate for members of Congress and their staff to bet on political events. It was the survey’s most lopsided result.

The issue is not abstract for the industry. Political-event contracts can create questions about information access, market manipulation and conflicts of interest, particularly when the market outcome depends on an official action or a political decision. Those concerns have become part of the broader legal and policy debate over how far CFTC-regulated event contracts should extend.

How did Kalshi and Polymarket respond?

Kalshi criticized the poll’s methodology. “It’s not hard to bias a poll and this poll is biased,” a Kalshi spokesperson told Fortune. The company did not point to a competing public poll in Fortune’s account.

Polymarket emphasized that many users come to the site for information rather than trading. A Polymarket spokesperson told Reuters that “more than 90% of visits to Polymarket are to view markets, not to trade.” That response reflects a recurring argument from prediction-market operators: real-money prices can be useful to journalists, analysts and the public even when many viewers never place a trade.

Does this match earlier polling on prediction markets?

Broadly, yes. A Scripps News/Talker Research survey of 2,000 registered voters, fielded April 14 to 22, found that more than 71% were very or somewhat concerned about platforms allowing bets on election results or military operations. The same survey found 49% concern about sports betting.

The Scripps/Talker poll also found that 63% of respondents had little to no confidence that prediction markets could stop insider trading, and 65% agreed that the markets were “no different from gambling operations.” The Reuters/Ipsos and Scripps/Talker surveys used different samples and questions, so the figures should not be treated as a direct trend line. The pattern is still consistent: respondents were more comfortable with sports betting than with contracts tied to elections, war or government decisions.

Why does the poll matter for the 2026 midterms?

The poll arrives as election-market prices become more visible in mainstream political coverage. CBS News announced September 30 that it would add real-time Kalshi prices to its midterm coverage, and Fortune reported that CNN and CNBC have similar Kalshi arrangements.

Corporate control is shifting at the same time. Skydance completed its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery on October 6, according to the companies, putting CBS News and CNN under the same parent company. That gives the display of election-market odds a larger media footprint heading into the 2026 midterms.

Trading volume has also expanded. Pew Research Center analysis found that combined monthly volume on Kalshi and Polymarket rose from about $26 billion in May to $53 billion in July. That topline growth has helped move prediction-market prices into a wider business and political conversation.

Election markets remain more concentrated than that headline volume might suggest. Anti-Corruption Data Collective analysis found that the top 1% of Polymarket wallets accounted for 68% of trading volume on 2026 congressional markets, and that 80% of those congressional markets had fewer than 100 wallets trading.

That concentration is relevant to how networks and readers interpret market prices. A thinly traded election contract can move for reasons that have little to do with broad public expectations, especially when a small number of accounts account for most of the activity. The Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests that public acceptance of those prices as political information remains limited when the underlying activity is framed as wagering.

What happens next?

The Reuters/Ipsos poll does not set a regulatory deadline, but it gives policymakers, broadcasters and exchanges a clearer read on the politics around election contracts. Sixty percent of adults in the survey opposed using prediction markets to wager on election outcomes, and 75% said wagering on prediction markets is gambling.

The next major public marker is November 3, 2026, when U.S. midterm elections will test how widely election-market prices are used in political coverage. For exchanges, the question is whether legal victories and media distribution can overcome a public-opinion environment that remains skeptical of political wagering.