Resolves YES if a legislator, judge, or governor in at least one US state successfully overrides its presidential election result to send at least one different elector to the electoral college than the electors selected by the voters in that state.
This does not include a state following the National Popular Vote compact if the pact activated for the state before voting day, but does if the pact is activated after voting day.
This does not include a state switching from proportional to winner-takes-all allocation of electors before voting day, or vice versa, but does include a state making such a switch after voting day.
Close date updated to 2025-01-06 12:23 pm
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ385 | |
| 2 | Ṁ88 | |
| 3 | Ṁ40 | |
| 4 | Ṁ33 | |
| 5 | Ṁ12 |
People are also trading
@dreev My intention: the popular vote in the state in the election for the federal presidential election.
But I think I need to N/A this market because not all states currently assign electors purely based on statewide popular vote, so the question is not well posed.
@dreev @NicoDelon @TheOracle How about this fixed question? Do you all agree that this is what you were betting on and that this wording is clearer?
@MartinRandall The results at the federal level are determined in part by electors, so I’m not sure what it would mean for a state to ignore it. You probably mean: in those states that assign electors, will at least one override the results of the election in that state. That’s how I understood it.
@NicoDelon ... there are states that don't assign electors!?
Maybe I'm the wrong person to make this market...
@MartinRandall No sorry, I meant not all in the same way, as you noted elsewhere. All status but Maine and Nebraska use a winner-take-all method. These two allocate electors proportionally.
