Background
Australia will hold a federal election on 3 May 2025.
Resolution procedure
This market will resolve YES if, in the course of the election campaign, a notable accuser earnestly alleges that a notable political entity supports, is supported by, is aligned with, is connected to or has colluded with a notable Russian entity in an improper or noteworthy manner.
This market will otherwise resolve NO.
Glossary
A notable accuser may be:
a political party that received at least 10% of first preference votes at the previous election
a federal parliamentarian
a mainstream media outlet
a prominent lobby group (such as GetUp! or Advance)
any person whose allegation is reported on by multiple mainstream media outlets
A notable political entity may be:
a political party that is polling at 2% or more, including any of its election candidates
an incumbent federal parliamentarian who is running for re-election
a prominent lobby group (such as GetUp! or Advance)
A notable Russian entity may be:
Vladimir Putin
the Russian Armed Forces
any agency or employee of the Russian government
the Russian embassy in Australia
a prominent Russian businessperson
an operation, real or otherwise, described by the accuser as Russian hackers or Russian bots
Close date
This market is due to close at 23:00:00 UTC on 5 May 2025, although it may resolve YES sooner.
Further information
I permit Manifold's moderators to resolve this market in a manner consistent with the resolution procedure if the market has been closed for at least one week without resolution.
I will not bet in this market.
Update 2025-04-18 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarification Regarding the Term ‘Supported By’:
The term is supported by does not require any allegation of actual collusion between Russia and a political entity.
It also does not require any claim of misconduct on the part of the political entity.
The market focuses on the allegation itself rather than the underlying reality of support or direct interference.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ73 | |
| 2 | Ṁ42 | |
| 3 | Ṁ16 | |
| 4 | Ṁ10 | |
| 5 | Ṁ9 |
People are also trading
@traders Bridget McKenzie has claimed that Russia wants Labor to win the election:
I notice that, you know, the Russian defence minister had derogatory comments to make about the leader of the opposition, the alternative prime minister, Peter Dutton. That would make two world leaders who want to see Anthony Albanese re-elected, and that would be China and Russia.
I am satisfied that:
Bridget McKenzie, as a federal parliamentarian, is a notable accuser
Anthony Albanese, as a federal parliamentarian seeking re-election, is a notable political entity
Russia and its defence minister are notable Russian entities
Bridget McKenzie's comments were made in the course of the election campaign
I believe we are left with two issues:
Did McKenzie allege that Albanese is supported by Russia in an improper or noteworthy manner?
Was the allegation earnest?
It would be premature of me to decide on these issues now. Input is welcome. If there is ambiguity in the resolution criteria, I am open to running a poll to assist interpretation.
@a_l_e_x Towards the first issue, the comment was that "the russian defense minister had derogatory comments to make about the leader of the opposition", which in my opinion does not imply any allegation of direct support for Mr Albanese nor direct accusation of misconduct, rather it seems like a vague implication that if Mr Dutton is attracting criticism from foreign adversaries, then the current government must be more desirable for them, and therefore a poor choice.
I took the spirit of the question to mean some more direct allegations of misconduct or russian involvement with a political entity than "they have a preference for who governs", which is practically a given.
@TessaByte thanks for taking the time to comment! Having considered your point and some possible counter-arguments, I agree that having a preference does not necessarily entail 'support' in this context.
With regard to your second paragraph, there is something I should clarify for future reference. While it may be a given that Russia has a preference for who governs, it is not a given that one party will accuse another of being that preference. This market, of course, concerns the allegation rather than the reality. The phrase "is supported by" does not require any alleged collusion between Russia and a political entity, nor does it require any alleged misconduct on the part of the latter.