The Republican Party swept the 2024 election, winning the presidency, all swing states, the national popular vote, the Senate, and (likely) the House.
What caused this (in particular, what caused the POTUS result)?
This market starts with 10 placeholders. Comment a reason and I'll edit it in (limit one per user). After all placeholders are taken up, I'll open it up so anyone can add answers. This market will remain open until the end of the month. After that, there will be a voting process to determine the top options.
For the vote, I will write a comment for each option, and the top 5 in terms of likes (Edit: likes minus dislikes) will resolve YES, all other options will resolve NO. If there's a tie, the tied options will resolve to %.
The vote will run for about a week and it will close at a random time. I won't bet on this market.
Reasons must refer to one specific thing, e.g. "High inflation and lack of competitive primary" is not allowed. I may N/A options that do not adhere to this rule or are too similar to another option.
Users are encouraged to persuade others in the comments section.
This is my first time running a market like this, suggestions welcome!
Possible clarification from creator (AI generated): In case of a tie for the last spots in the top 5 most-liked options (measured by likes minus dislikes), all tied options will resolve to YES.
Possible clarification from creator (AI generated): In case of a three-way tie for most likes (measured by likes minus dislikes), the option picked by FairlyRandom will resolve to 66% while the other two options will resolve to 67%.
1,000
3.00In case a mod wants to unresolve this whole market, here is an exhaustive list of all options that resolved to something other than No:
I'm very sorry for everyone who is having negative balances as a result of this market, and I hope the bug that caused it is fixed soon.
Note: I don't think that the N/A'ed options will need unresolving because they resolved before loans came back.
@traders The resolutions caused negative payouts for some users. I am going to test unresolving one of the options to see if it makes an impact. We will re-resolve it later on back to the correct result.
The option picked by FairlyRandom will resolve 66%, while the other two resolves 67%.
"Lack of a compelling narrative to motivate and engage people" +7
"Joe Biden was both a weak candidate and dropped out too late." +7
"Incumbents unpopular worldwide" +7
Options with more likes than dislikes (as of when I originally wrote this comment, which was when the voting ended):
"Disdain for institutions, including the mainstream media, higher education, and government bureaucracies." +5
"Failure to present themselves as fighting for lower and middle classes" +5
"Because they didn't hold a primary" +6
"Lack of a compelling narrative to motivate and engage people" +7
"Joe Biden was both a weak candidate and dropped out too late." +7
"Because they got fewer votes" +4
"Incumbents unpopular worldwide" +7
"Not enough perceived distinction between Biden and Harris" +10
"They took the blame for inflation" +17
"The median voter at least felt worse off economically under Biden." +13
Top 5:
"They took the blame for inflation" +17
"The median voter at least felt worse off economically under Biden." +13
"Not enough perceived distinction between Biden and Harris" +10
(3 way tie for last two spots)
"Lack of a compelling narrative to motivate and engage people" +7
"Joe Biden was both a weak candidate and dropped out too late." +7
"Incumbents unpopular worldwide" +7
In case a mod wants to unresolve this whole market, here is an exhaustive list of all options that resolved to something other than No:
I'm very sorry for everyone who is having negative balances as a result of this market, and I hope the bug that caused it is fixed soon.
Note: I don't think that the N/A'ed options will need unresolving because they resolved before loans came back.
@traders The resolutions caused negative payouts for some users. I am going to test unresolving one of the options to see if it makes an impact. We will re-resolve it later on back to the correct result.
@Eliza If you bet a market in the YES direction when it was at 80% before betting, then it resolved to 66%, that would be a failed bet, right?
@Quroe The issue is a user with 1000 mana of outstanding loans on this market type, is having 1000 mana deducted from the balance for EACH resolved answer. Until the bug is fixed we have to choose between unresolving the markets temporarily, or watching users live with balances of "negative thousands" of mana....
@Quroe For your specific question:
If a market resolves to 66%, then Yes shares pay out 0.66 mana per share and No shares pay out 0.34 mana per share.
If you bought 1000 Yes shares at 80%, you would get 1000*0.66 => 660 mana paid back. (Regardless of how much you paid to acquire those shares.)
If you owned 1000 No shares, you would get 1000*0.34 => 340 mana paid back.
@Eliza For anybody else trying to follow the story: https://manifold.markets/bagelfan/why-did-the-democrats-lose-the-2024#1ykf5k1w6m1
Hey @mods , trying to understand what happened here? There were 46 instances in total. Sorry if stupid question.
@PhilosophyBear Same issue as your other balance thing, I forwarded this to the site team.
I'm going to suggest avoiding resolving "unlinked MC" markets for right now if the users have outstanding loans.
@PhilosophyBear I had a similar thing. Lost about 60k when this market resolved!
Hopefully the team manage to figure it out soon. :)
The option picked by FairlyRandom will resolve 66%, while the other two resolves 67%.
"Lack of a compelling narrative to motivate and engage people" +7
"Joe Biden was both a weak candidate and dropped out too late." +7
"Incumbents unpopular worldwide" +7
Options with more likes than dislikes (as of when I originally wrote this comment, which was when the voting ended):
"Disdain for institutions, including the mainstream media, higher education, and government bureaucracies." +5
"Failure to present themselves as fighting for lower and middle classes" +5
"Because they didn't hold a primary" +6
"Lack of a compelling narrative to motivate and engage people" +7
"Joe Biden was both a weak candidate and dropped out too late." +7
"Because they got fewer votes" +4
"Incumbents unpopular worldwide" +7
"Not enough perceived distinction between Biden and Harris" +10
"They took the blame for inflation" +17
"The median voter at least felt worse off economically under Biden." +13
Top 5:
"They took the blame for inflation" +17
"The median voter at least felt worse off economically under Biden." +13
"Not enough perceived distinction between Biden and Harris" +10
(3 way tie for last two spots)
"Lack of a compelling narrative to motivate and engage people" +7
"Joe Biden was both a weak candidate and dropped out too late." +7
"Incumbents unpopular worldwide" +7
Odd: two upvotes on my comment where I actually explain why letting in a large number of undocumented immigrants hurt Democrats https://manifold.markets/bagelfan/why-did-the-democrats-lose-the-2024#9dh4uj3t4d but a net of -8 in the comment for official voting.
@Dauur It's in there somewhere. I randomized the order of the comments, but I checked and every option is there.
@bagelfan The top 10 has multiple ties, but not the top 5 right now. Are you open to having tiebreakers should it affect the top 5 or is it too late? Number of total votes would be fair in my opinion since it reduces the margin of error.
@SIMOROBO In the description it says "If there's a tie, the tied options will resolve to %", probably too late to change.
@bagelfan I appreciate the integrity. Since this market format is kind of an experiment, for future markets, I think it would be better if top 5 scores including ties would resolve to 100%. Imagine if there were 10 answers perfectly tied for first place, they would all resolve to 10% and only @Fion would win.
@SIMOROBO If 10 answers are all tied for first place, they will resolve to 50%, so the sum is 500%. I think if I were to make a similar market, I would make it so that each option resolves on its own rather than top x.
@bagelfan Oh right, that makes sense. So distribute the prize pool (500%) to answers scoring in the top 5. It adds complexity for the trader though. Imagine being convinced one answer will make it to the top 5, currently priced at 60%, you would think it would be profitable to buy YES but you could be right and still lose mana on that trade.
At the Olympics, you can have three participants tied for first place and they will each get a full gold medal, not their share of the prize pool, which would be 1/3 of a gold, silver and bronze medal each.