I was just made my own take on this question as well, after a very similar subject came up in another discussion. I tried to pick criteria that would be as objective as possible.

I made another market on the same question.

https://manifold.markets/Boklam/republicans-win-democratically-and-88c259979478

I will resolve the market based on my own judgement. (I tend to interpret things literally, and to take words to mean precisely what they say.)

I tend to interpret things literally, and to take words to mean precisely what they say

I suspect most people would describe themselves this way?

@IsaacKing Not sure I agree with you, actually. Many people pride themselves on being "intuitive" or "artistic" or "reading between the lines"...

But in any case, I wrote that to send a signal about how I will resolve. Even if most people would describe themselves that way, the fact that I wrote those words in this context means something...

@Boklam disagreements about word bindings are a very fair concern. I also intend to interpret this description fairly literally; I do actually expect that the voting system will become similarly meaningless to the Russian voting system, and it seems my expectation is not shared. to be clear, I think the current system is imbalanced but not catastrophically so; to become truly an empty shell like Russia would require major changes in which rules are enforceable.

The only reason I'm not buying lower is that I don't trust L to resolve this accurately (sorry). There are far too many details to get all of them right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy

@Yev The question is vaguely worded, and I suspect L will interpret many of these words in a different way from what I consider their natural meanings. L's comment (the one that begins "things that would NOT cause me to choose this response...") does not inspire confidence.

@L, I posted a hypothetical scenario below; I'm wondering how you would resolve in that case.

Before betting more I'd like to confirm that this resolves NO if:

• Republicans lose.

• Republicans win non-democratically.

• Republicans win democratically and slowly erode democracy over some years.

• Republicans win democratically, end democracy swiftly, and a civil war occurs.

• Republicans win democratically, end democracy swiftly, no civil war (but maybe some "uprisings"), but democracy is partially restored by 2028.

@MartinRandall civil war resolves the original market n/a, so presumably resolves this one no. slow erosion of democracy would be very surprising to me, as I expect a slam the door move after this election, probably independent state legislature theory. if that doesn't happen within two years, the swift move to satisfy militiants on the right didn't happen; if it doesn't happen in the first 6 months then L's max likelihood estimate didn't happen. winning non-democratically I think resolves this market negative - though I would be very surprised if that happened without violence, and if violence occurs, the original market resolves n/a anyway, so that it is only an anti-assassination market, not an assassination market. if democracy is restored then I'm also surprised by that outcome and this market would definitely resolve no.

@L Can you offer me some insight into how you intend to resolve? Here is a scenario that I think is plausible.

Republicans win both chambers of the legislature in 2022; they win the presidency in 2024 and hold both chambers of the legislature until 2028. During this time there are no major changes to voting procedure at the federal level. There are no changes to redistricting procedures (I don't expect another redistricting until 2030), and the Supreme Court does not make any rulings on the issue. There's no major violence on either side.

How would you resolve?

@Boklam negative, and this and similar possibilities turn on whether the supreme Court makes major rulings affecting balance of democratic outcomes significantly. for example, independent state legislature theory. goes to check markets on how that might go

@L When you say "regains democratic control", do you mean "regains Democratic control" (control by the Democratic party), or "regains democratic control" (control by democracy)?

When you say "no part of the federal government", do you mean only the House, the Senate, and the presidency, or do you include other "parts" as well?

@Boklam that is ambiguous, yes, sorry, I meant Democratic party control. I meant House, Senate, and presidency.

the end of American democracy will likely be either swift or peaceful, but not both

things which would NOT cause me to choose this response in the free-response market this individual market tracks:

• republicans win democratically, but the supreme court limits gerrymandering sufficiently that, despite the increase in electoral imbalance, democrats can keep winning a reasonable portion of the time, and do eventually regain control. conditional on republicans-win-democratically, I do not currently expect the supreme court to limit republican gerrymandering whatsoever.

• republicans win and make blatantly unconstitutional moves about what qualifies as legal voting, and the supreme court decides the moves are constitutional, triggering a violent uprising starting on the left comparable to the irish troubles

• republicans lose, triggering a violent uprising starting on the right comparable to the irish troubles

• republicans lose, but somehow there isn't widespread violence

etc. see the other market for details.

@L If gerrymandering suffices to "end democracy" then democracy is already ended, so Republicans cannot end it. If it does not suffice then I don't understand why you bring it up.

@MartinRandall The current degree of gerrymandering is insufficient to make democracy produce guaranteed outcomes in the federal government. In order for gerrymandering to qualify as having ended democracy at the federal level, house, Senate, and presidency would need to become nearly deterministic (eg, 95% chance republicans win a senate and house majority) regardless of how people actually intended to vote.

@L One plausible measure of gerrymandering is to compare the results with the popular vote margin. If Rs win control of the House despite losing the popular vote 39-61, that's strong evidence of gerrymandering. 49-51, that's much weaker evidence.

@L By the way, last time I checked, 538 was saying "Rs are favored to win the House if they win the popular vote by at least 0.7 percentage points". This certainly does not sound like gerrymandering is giving them an advantage.

@L Here is a prediction market on the effects of gerrymandering for this election.

https://manifold.markets/Boklam/how-much-advantage-will-republicans

@L @MartinRandall does this seem like a good proxy measure for "Republicans attacking democracy" in the future?

@Boklam Good point on Republicans needing >50% of votes to win >50% of House seats:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house/

This is partly the result of gerrymandering from both parties, as well as other factors.

@L Do you claim that Democracy has ended in state politics in California, for example, where there is a 97% chance of a Democrat politician being elected governor?

@MartinRandall huh, interesting point. The fact that I can't think of a reason to answer anything but yes throws a wrench into some of the implications I had been assuming. I don't think gerrymandering is to blame for California, so much as first past the post; That's because different gerrymanders don't seem like they would be enough to change the outcome to be more variable, due to the strong majority of blue voters in California in the first place. perhaps a better metric is how closely the distribution of elected officials matches the distribution of votes; by that metric California is still doing very badly, but more accurately matches my intuition that it's not doing as badly as I expect the US to be doing if Republicans win and make the level of changes I expect.

maybe one way to summarize what I am expecting to happen is that in the world where Republicans change rules to the degree I expect, Republicans always winning California would be at least a 30% likely outcome.

@L Do you have concrete predictions for how Republicans will change the rules? It sounds like you're predicting something much more sinister than I think is realistic, so if we can formulate a precise question it will be an interesting market.

I would absolutely love to lose my prediction points on this, but oh geez is that not what I currently expect. here's to hoping that future me thinks things avoided this outcome! my current probability is in fact about 70% for this outcome - ie, my estimate of the probability that republicans win both houses.

@L Shouldn't you be betting more on this then? Lot of mana to be made! :)

@IsaacKing I've updated quite a bit in the hours since I made that bet, and I'm low on mana; I'm an okay independent predictor but not a great prediction trader, and I already own 145 yes shares which I bought at a good price. not currently feeling the need to buy more.