Markets
How many confirmed illegal votes will be publicly reported in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election by December 31, 2026?
Loading...
About this market
This market resolves to the option that corresponds to the number of confirmed illegal votes cast in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, as publicly reported and verified by authoritative sources (e.g., U.S. DOJ, state election officials) by December 31, 2026. Only fully documented cases verified by government agencies or courts will count towards resolution.
Rules
- Market closes December 31, 2026 (ET).
- This is a multi-outcome market. All outcome probabilities sum to 100%.
- One outcome will be selected as the winner at resolution.
gotta say, this market feels off. illegal votes are super rare in the grand scheme of things, yet people keep expecting a huge number. it's like everyone forgot that we went through all that drama in 2020 and nothing really came of it. i doubt we're gonna see many confirmed reports, just a bunch of noise.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the rarity of illegal votes and references the 2020 election context, which supports its claims, though it lacks specific data to fully substantiate its assertions. It is relevant to the market question, discussing expectations around illegal votes, and while it contains some emotional appeal, it remains mostly logical. The weights reflect a balanced focus on relevance and logical coherence over strict factual verification.
This market feels kind of off; there weren't really many reports about fraud in the last election. I get the hype but I'm not convinced there's gonna be a lot to report.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the sentiment regarding the lack of significant fraud reports in the last election, which supports a moderate score for Fact Check. It is logically sound with no fallacies detected, hence a high score for No Fallacies. The relevance is good as it addresses the market question, but it does not provide strong evidence or data to support its claims, leading to a lower weight for Fact Check. The emotional appeal is present but balanced with reasoning, resulting in a moderate score for Logic/Emotion Balance.
the whole idea of focusing on illegal votes is kind of a joke. like, sure, there might be some isolated incidents, but the reality is there’s really no evidence that they swung the election. also, the media loves to hype this up for clicks. investing in this feels like a waste of time when you could focus on more relevant stuff, honestly.
Rationale:The comment presents a mostly accurate view regarding the lack of evidence that illegal votes significantly impacted elections, which is supported by various studies. However, it does contain some emotional language and generalizations about media hype. The weights reflect a balanced focus on factual accuracy and logical coherence, given the comment's emphasis on the perceived futility of the market topic.
tbh, I think this market's kinda misleading. Like, illegal votes are super hard to quantify, and any reported numbers could be biased or just blown out of proportion. The 2024 election is over, and everyone’s still arguing about it, so I doubt we’ll ever get a clear count. I'm curious how they'd even confirm these votes anyway. For me, the price feels way too high given how uncertain this is.
Rationale:The comment raises valid concerns about the quantification of illegal votes and the potential for bias in reported numbers, which aligns with the uncertainty surrounding the market. However, while the skepticism is reasonable, it lacks specific evidence to fully support the claims, leading to a score of 70 for Fact Check. The comment is mostly logical and relevant to the market question, but it does contain some emotional elements regarding the perceived uncertainty of the situation. The weights reflect a balanced focus on relevance and logical reasoning, given the nature of the comment.
tbh, this market feels off, like are we really expecting a lot of reported illegal votes or just the usual noise? i’d bet on way less than 100, maybe even down to 20 if we’re lucky. most states already tightened the rules post-2020, so what's the point of overhyping this?
Rationale:The comment presents a mostly accurate perspective on the potential for reported illegal votes, acknowledging the tightening of rules in many states since 2020. However, it lacks specific data to fully substantiate the claim about the number of illegal votes expected. The comment is relevant to the market question and balances logical reasoning with some emotional appeal, leading to a moderate score across the criteria.
this market feels kind of wild. like, illegal votes are such a hot-button issue and the number is probably gonna be super low if we look at past elections. I’d bet on under 10,000 confirmed by the end of 2026. but there’s always that fear-mongering, so who knows how it'll swing with the public narrative.
Rationale:The comment presents a mostly accurate perspective on the historical context of illegal votes, suggesting a low number based on past elections, which is a reasonable deduction. However, it lacks specific data to fully substantiate the claim about the number of illegal votes. The comment is relevant to the market question and balances logical reasoning with some emotional appeal regarding fear-mongering. The weights reflect the importance of factual accuracy and logical coherence in this context.
this market is just a mess. i mean, how can we predict illegal votes when every election is basically claimed to have them but rarely gets confirmed? the price feels inflated because of all the conspiracy theories floating around. just look at past elections, most of the claims were never substantiated. feels like a lot of noise for something that might end up being next to nothing.
Rationale:The comment raises valid points about the difficulty of predicting illegal votes and references the historical context of unsubstantiated claims, which supports a mostly accurate score for Fact Check. It avoids major logical fallacies, though it does contain some emotional appeal regarding conspiracy theories. The relevance to the market question is strong, as it discusses the nature of claims about illegal votes. The weights reflect a balanced focus on factual accuracy and relevance, given the comment's analytical nature.
people still care about this, huh? pretty sure the whole election was a mess and the claims were kinda wild, but expecting any actual numbers seems like a stretch. not sure who’s gonna keep counting these illegal votes for two years after the fact.
Rationale:The comment expresses skepticism about the reporting of illegal votes, which is a relevant point but lacks specific factual backing. The claim that the election was a 'mess' is subjective and not substantiated with evidence, leading to a mixed score for fact-checking. The comment is mostly logical but contains some emotional undertones, particularly in its dismissal of the situation. The weights reflect a balance between relevance and the need for factual accuracy, given the speculative nature of the claims.
this market is wild, like, do we really expect a definitive number on illegal votes? seems more likely we'll just get a bunch of claims and no real accountability anyway.
Rationale:The comment expresses skepticism about the ability to obtain a definitive number of illegal votes, which is a valid concern but lacks specific evidence or data to support the claim. It contains some emotional appeal and rhetorical questions, which detract from its logical rigor. The weights reflect a moderate emphasis on relevance and the presence of some logical issues, while fact-checking is less critical given the speculative nature of the comment.
Anyone have a model for this? Mine spits out something close to the current price.
Rationale:Scoring temporarily unavailable.