Comment Re:Not really a problem... (Score 1) 130
I find the notion that reality conforming to a semi-obscure prediction market based in Ireland to be patently ridiculous. Something like an election is decided based on millions of individuals who go out and vote. An example from the most recent election in the US:
Every statitician worth their salt was predicting Obama as the likely victor. Nate Silver was only one, but he had the biggest microphone. There was also Andy Tannenbaum (electoral-vote.com), Larry Sabato (UVA center for politics), and even one with a conservative bent, but I can't recall the guy's name (electionprojection.com).
However, despite that, you'd NEVER have known that Obama was likely to win if you watched the news. The media drummed it up as the "closest election EVAR!". I have relatives who only watch the news, and they all told me afterwards that either they were relieved and surprised Obama won handily, or upset and surprised he won handily, based on their political preference. The bottom line: Reality matched what the polls said, not what everybody was told on the news. The media is an indisputably powerful force for changing perception, but it didn't seem to actually make the election any closer. So why should we expect something like intrade to be able to move the needle of reality? If intrade had predicted a Romney win due to some serious market manipulation, it would have been roundly mocked afterwards, and Obama bettors would have laughed all the way to the bank. So I guess I still don't really see what the issue is...
That said, if you have an academic paper that might explain the concerns in a more proper form, please feel free to send me a link. I'm an amateur in this field, and I know that my ideas can have gigantic holes in them.
Every statitician worth their salt was predicting Obama as the likely victor. Nate Silver was only one, but he had the biggest microphone. There was also Andy Tannenbaum (electoral-vote.com), Larry Sabato (UVA center for politics), and even one with a conservative bent, but I can't recall the guy's name (electionprojection.com).
However, despite that, you'd NEVER have known that Obama was likely to win if you watched the news. The media drummed it up as the "closest election EVAR!". I have relatives who only watch the news, and they all told me afterwards that either they were relieved and surprised Obama won handily, or upset and surprised he won handily, based on their political preference. The bottom line: Reality matched what the polls said, not what everybody was told on the news. The media is an indisputably powerful force for changing perception, but it didn't seem to actually make the election any closer. So why should we expect something like intrade to be able to move the needle of reality? If intrade had predicted a Romney win due to some serious market manipulation, it would have been roundly mocked afterwards, and Obama bettors would have laughed all the way to the bank. So I guess I still don't really see what the issue is...
That said, if you have an academic paper that might explain the concerns in a more proper form, please feel free to send me a link. I'm an amateur in this field, and I know that my ideas can have gigantic holes in them.