Ooh I think I messed up. I wrote in the description that there needs to be a manual recount, thinking there was only one type of recount. The Elections teams are doing a machine recount according to the article.

Traders, what do you think? Resolve YES? Keep open?

@MikeChenSF Ah, well I definitely messed up too, I was aware of the possibility of it mattering and read your description looking for the word "manual", but managed to miss it.

There are only three non-bot traders, and of the two (me and @JimAusman) that traded after the recount started, both traded as if the recount would count. Though it looks like Jim noticed and reversed his trades once I traded it up further.

I think a YES resolution is probably unfair on Jim given he appears to have traded on the "manual" distinction mattering, at least after realising (that's how it looks, @JimAusman feel free to correct).

So I think it should be between NA and NO (or rather, I suppose, leaving open until it's clear there won't be any more recounts).

The case for NO is that that's what the literal text of the criteria said, and the case for NA is that everyone managed to miss it, suggesting the distinction wasn't emphasised enough (which, of course you didn't emphasise it, because you didn't think there were multiple types of recount).

@chrisjbillington I initially thought the news was that there was a manual recount so I bid it up. But after careful reading I started to back out of my position. I wanted to do it even more but was afraid that I was going to crash the market. You bailed me out Chris and I even bought some to what I think the right value is.

So I think I “earned it”. We might still get a manual recount, though I am not sure how that is triggered.

A recount has begun, resolves YES @MikeChenSF

https://www.ktvu.com/news/recount-begins-for-district-16-congressional-race