Some say it is Trump that has done the dethroning

well... has he been dethroned?

@Blomfilter If he had been, it wouldn’t be “by Pierre Poilievre in the 2025 Canadian election”, it would be “by Chrystia Freeland, in a 2024 resignation letter”.

@ChrisMills if you think that letter was the main issue then we must disagree. Poilievre's massive popularity has always been the major reason for his party members asking him to leave. Freeland was just a straw that broke the camel's back

@PeterNjeim When your Deputy PM, an irregular role that doesn’t typically exist in many Canadian governments, expresses a lack of confidence in your leadership, that is a kill shot to the PM. The PM is going out of their way to elevate a Member to be their key lieutenant, it is one hundred percent required that that person have unshakable confidence in the boss. When they don’t, it gives broad permission for any member of caucus to question the boss.

Now, sure, the party’s popularity is in a tailspin, and that’s created ongoing pressure on the PMO and the PM to find a solution to that state of affairs before the next election, but Freeland’s letter is why they’re not going to let him get to the next election. It forces the caucus to question why they’re more loyal than the Deputy PM, and it forces Singh to have to answer that same question to the Press Gallery, and.. there is no answer, other than a vote of no confidence.

I don’t think Poilievre really factors in much at all? People hate Trudeau, independent of their feelings about Poilievre. He didn’t get Trudeau to resign with sartorial skill or something, or even convince people to dislike Trudeau. People just independently noticed that everything in Canada got worse between 2015 and today, and the government has run out of other people and circumstances to credibly blame for that, and has to admit it’s about their policies.

@ChrisMills Pierre had a huge effect on Trudeau's popularity, demolishing him in popularity starting August 2023. Freeland only had the capability to make that letter because of Trudeau's failing prospects against Poilievre. Trudeau was going to get walloped no matter what Freeland did. You need to understand counterfactuals, she was a non factor

@PeterNjeim “massive popularity”? PP would be the second lowest-approved Prime Minister from the last fifty years at the time of assuming office. He’s not popular at all. Trudeau is just incredibly unpopular.

@cadca All Canadian politicians (and those around the world) are underwater. Poilievre is nearly 50/50, Trudeau's reputation was successfully tarnished by Pierre's campaign. Notice how you didn't respond to the crux of my counterargument, which is that Trudeau would have lost handily no matter what Freeland did. Polls showed that consistently for at least a year before this event happened. Pierre successfully dethroned Trudeau, and when he wins the election, this market would have resolved Yes (but now will probably N/A, thankfully)

@PeterNjeim My point is that the Poilievre’s specific popularity is irrelevant. Freeland’s resignation, with that letter, would have had the same impact if Singh had been the presumptive PM. It’s a story about the PM’s control of his own caucus due to a cratering of his personal approval ratings, not a story about how popular his presumed opponent is. This is obvious, because Poilievre isn’t personally popular, he isn’t seeing a surge in approval ratings as a leader, Trudeau has experienced a collapse of his own.

This is neither here nor there though, because your argument is that he would have lost, which I agree with, but my argument is, “Yes, but he didn’t” and that’s how the title is worded. 🤷‍♂️

@ChrisMills Poilievre is the most popular politician in Canada and successfully campaigned to overthrow the Trudeau government. That's what polls confirmed for almost 2 years now. Calls for Trudeau's resignation started growing once Conservative party dominance in the polls were cemented. He did lose, which is why he was forced to resign. Not sure how you think resigning in disgrace right before an election is something other than a "dethroning"

@ChrisMills the letter would have had no impact if Singh was somehow popular, because Singh collaborated with Trudeau. In a situation with a weak Conservative party with a weak leader, all that letter would have done is probably result in a reduced minority government again. It would be another in a long list of scandals that didn't have too much of an effect. The reality is that a strong Conservative party with a strong leader is what allowed the dethroning to take place. Calls for resignations happened far before Freeland's letter, this is undeniable

@PeterNjeim nono Peter, I am denying it, you’re simply failing to understand the counterfactual.

@ChrisMills what a beautiful response. Instead of engaging with the bullet-proof counterargument that debunked your counterfactual, you merely claim, without evidence, that one doesn't understand. This is a classical fallacy, the "you don't understand but I also can't muster a response for some reason" fallacy

@PeterNjeim How would you feel if you hadn’t had breakfast this morning?

If Pierre Polievre beats another candidate (because Justin Trudeau resigns, for example), this should resolve NO, since Polievre could not dethrone Trudeau at that point.

@Kraalnaxx That's debatable, read the discussion below

Why would you write your question title like this?

@ChrisMills apparently not a moron

How does this market resolve if the election occurs before 2025?

What if their parties have a tie in seats?

Still hasn't happened yet so fingers crossed, we'll cross that bridge when it comes to it! 👍

@BumKing Might want to start considering this question, re: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/jagmeet-singh-pulls-ndp-out-of-supply-and-confidence-deal-with-trudeau-liberals-1.7024851

@BumKing this is a very bad way to run a market. How are people supposed to trade with confidence when your answer to clarifying questions is "meh idk"?

@treeboar I’m trading with the assumption that mods will agree that the question clearly says “Justin Trudeau” and 2025, and will ask for this to be resolved in favor of “NO” if Trudeau resigns before the election, because that seems like the plain interpretation of what the question is asking.

I’m going to assume the person calling me a moron will be unhappy with this outcome, but we can’t all be literate.

@ChrisMills I never interpreted the question that way lol, I always interpreted it as Pierre winning the election, with the Trudeau being dethroned part meaning losing power in any way due to Pierre's actions. I called you a moron because I thought you were betting on Trudeau winning an election, not on Trudeau resigning

https://chatgpt.com/share/6760bbe6-4f3c-8001-9201-779fdca0b2ac

@BumKing does Trudeau need to be dethroned in general, or does he need to lose the election specifically?

@PeterNjeim The title of the market tells us that "being dethroned in general" would not be sufficient, because it clearly specifies, "In the Canadian Election, in 2025, by Pierre Poilievre".

In my interpretation, which involves "reading the words in the title", this is not satisfied if:

• An election was held in 2024, in which Pierre Poilievre defeats Trudeau (no longer possible, but the basis for earlier wagering by me)

• Justin Trudeau is not the leader by 2025, or resigns the leadership before an election, meaning he would not have been dethroned by Pierre Poilievre

• Justin Trudeau loses an election to someone other than Pierre Poilievre

• etc.

The refusal of the market maker to clarify (but the expressed openness to interpretation before he disappeared) makes me think the words in the title should probably tell us the conditions of the wager, because there's nothing else to go on, though the fact that "dethroned" is a pretty flowery word could make a literalistic interpretation of the title impossible to satisfy, so shrug

@ChrisMills I agree with you for the most part, especially at the end where you admit that "dethrone" is ambiguous, as in my opinion one can be dethroned without losing an election, and the election result becomes relevant because Pierre needs to win it for this to resolve Yes. Here's a continuation of my discussion with ChatGPT:

https://chatgpt.com/share/6760bbe6-4f3c-8001-9201-779fdca0b2ac

@treeboar Don't worry all will reveal itself in time.

@BumKing I will get the mods involved if you don't explain how this will resolve

@mods please get involved, he hasn't clarified and now it matters

@BumKing delete your account you hack

@mods cancel this market and ban the creator for being willfully deceptive

@BumKing obviously. We are here to predict stuff. To do that we need clarity on how market resolvers will resolve markets. That's you. And your clarity offered is "meh idk"

@PeterNjeim personal opinion: the market's meaningless at this point and this should N/A, anyone disagree?

@jacksonpolack I agree with an N/A resolution

@jacksonpolack I disagree. It's not meaningless. He didn't and probably won't dethrone him, so it should resolve no. I thought the meaning was clear: that Poilievre would defeat Trudeau in an election.

@AndrewHebb That's one reasonable interpretation, but the problem is the creator will not say if it is the correct one, so it's all up in the air, hence meaningless.

@jacksonpolack I’m fine with N/A, but it could clearly resolve “No”, because the mechanism by which Trudeau will stop being the PM is not “an election, in 2025, in which he is defeated by a named opponent”, but by personal resignation, which still results in him losing the Primeministership, which seems to be the question being asked by the creator.

I could see “N/A” though, if the creator simply means, “Poilievre defeats Trudeau? - Y/N”, if no such contest occurs, implied N/A.

At the end of the day, my wager was intended to benefit from this.. lack of clarity, on the assumption that it could plausibly resolve “NO” in many circumstances other than Trudeau winning. Not sure if it’s prosocial or not.

@Odoacre what other interpretation could there possibly be?

@AndrewHebb the thread you're replying in has two other interpretations. One by me, and own shared in Chris Mill's latest comment.

Focusing on Chris', the lack of "historical battle" existing (if you interpret that to mean a head-to-head election) probably implies N/A (I usually interpret the default state of a market to be N/A, not NO).

It's really a philosophical question whether you think markets are conditional on events existing or whether the event's existence is also a part of the market criteria or not. Judging by the spirit of this market, it's pretty obvious it wasn't trying to predict whether or not the "historical battle" would occur or not, but rather simply the outcome of that battle. Since the battle didn't happen (again, if you interpret it as meaning a head-to-head election), the question is no longer applicable, therefore N/A.

As Chris said, you could also interpret it in a very technical sense as still being NO (again, with the interpretation that "historical battle" refers to a head-to-head election), but it would be against the spirit of the market and therefore possibly antisocial.

So, you gotta choose what your philosophy is, but as for me, I think N/A, which literally means not applicable, perfectly applies to situations where the event a question is asking about ceases to exist