Before there was Gallup or Real Clear Politics, newspapers covered races in part by reporting the odds that betting firms put on candidates like Woodrow Wilson, whom bookmakers correctly pegged as the likely winner in 1916. Some states started banning the practice because it was viewed as “unseemly” says David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. “It was seen as people making money off of democracy.” And, he says, it was easy for an opponent to make the argument that inside information would be a great risk.
Segerblom says “the time has come” for a reversal because gambling is becoming more “socially acceptable,” particularly through efforts to legalize online gaming and expand practices like sports betting. He also sees it as leveling a playing field: during previous elections, people outside the U.S. have placed millions on American presidential contests through outfits such as Ireland-based Intrade, a firm which recently shuttered after an audit discovered financial irregularities. “If they can bet on our election in England,” Segerblom says, “then there’s no reason why we couldn’t bet on our election in the United States.”