Will there be any upsets in the 2024 US Presidential election?

(As of the time of this writing, May 19, 2024:)

According to other Manifold markets, every state and elector-awarding district has a >80% chance of voting for the same person in the 2024 election as they did in the 2020 election, except for the following swing states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina.

If any state, other than those seven, votes for a candidate in 2024 who is not the same candidate (or from the same party as the candidate) that they voted for in 2020, resolves YES. The same applies to other elector-awarding districts (DC and each individual district in Nebraska and Maine). Otherwise, resolves NO.

Resolution is based on the official winner of the vote in that state or district; "faithless electors" do not change the outcome of this market. If there are challenges to the official count of the vote, I will still resolve based on the official count, unless there is a legally mandated recount (as in, if there is a case like Bush v. Gore and the Supreme Court rules the opposite way that they did in 2000).

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

edited to clarify what happens if the vote count is challenged

opened a Ṁ150 YES at 60% order

So there are like 44-ish remaining districts (not US based and not bothering). Assuming they were independent, you'd need like 98.4% probability of not flipping in all of them to get below 50% probability of seeing a single upset. 97.9% probability of not flipping per state will get you to 60% probability of an upset. Now, they are not independent, and there's a bunch of other stuff going on, but I don't think voting is that stable....

@MartinModrak A lot of them are >99%, and events aren’t independent here.

@ShadowyZephyr Yes, but couple are also in the 80% range. And just a few of those are enough to bring the overall prob quite high even under high correlations...

So if ME-01 flips Republican, or NE-01/NE-03 flip Democratic, how does this resolve?

@BrunoParga Resolves YES; edited to clarify