In case you want to bet on 2025.

why does this close in aug

Fixed thanks!

@jack Added Harris's Vp pick!

Eh, not "historic" enough for a double feature with Harris probably.

Hey @jack you REALLY shouldn't be trading in your own market here, lol. You made a post-hoc rules clarification after moving a market value by 30% and setting up a 10k limit order. I think the fact that the market was so miscalibrated was evidence in the subjectivity of the criteria. These kinds of markets are notoriously difficult to resolve with tons of edge cases.

There are tons of other POTY markets you could be betting in

I trade in my own markets when they are reasonably unambiguous. I will happily defer on the decision to other mods in this case since you bring it up - I like to do so anyway whenever there may be a conflict of interest. I thought it was fully unambiguous, but you think not, so we'll see what other mods say and leave it up to them.

Note that I was heavily trading in all options before responding to your question. I put up a lot of limit orders on many options, it's not at all specific to this.

A big reason I made this market is because I really don't like trading the other POTY markets - having to reason about the resolution being split between answers 50-50 etc makes my head hurt.

For reference, as a general matter I actually prefer having other mods resolve contested resolution decisions, and will be happy to do so for any other decisions here where it's needed.

I pulled it off in 2006, hoping I can do it again

Assuming a head-of-state-elect counts for the purpose of this option?

Rules for special answers:
- A future head of state or government does not suffice.

Yeah, the rules already cover that. I wrote it as current or former, not future, and the descriptions are very unambiguous about that. I could add another one that includes elects as well, but then I'd have to write rules for who counts as an electoral winner globally which sounds nontrivial to handle edge cases. (Imagine adjudicating who won in Venezuela -Other markets can adjudicate that, I want this market to be simple)

Why would it?

A head-of-state-elect is not a "future head of state" though! Those are very different!

You mean there may be future heads os state who arent heads of state elect yet? I get that, my point was that Harris doesnt count here, even if she wins, tho of course Trump does

@jack that's not "unambiguous" in any way! Head-of-state-elects are often described as the "current head of state" and the former head of state described as a "lame duck head-of-state" during the transitional period between an election and an inauguration!

Hmm. I had never heard anyone describe the president elect as the current head of state, that seems like stepping away from the obvious meaning of the words. The president elect is a future president and not a current president. You agree with that, I hope? Because I just can't imagine anyone calling the president elect the current president.

Also what could the phrase future head of state even refer to in this context other than a head of state elect? I'll happily edit it to make it clearer but I don't think there is any ambiguity.

As per another comment thread, I will happily defer to other @mods for this decision. So take the above as my personal take, not a final ruling.

For reference, the original rules were:

[Any head of state or government, current or former] resolves YES if the person is, or was previously, a head of state or head of government according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_heads_of_state_and_government.

Then because I anticipated the confusion I added this sentence to the description (this happened very early in the market, before Ben asked the question.)

A future head of state or government does not suffice.

I view this addition as "just to help readers understand" and not as a change to the rules - the goal was to just explicitly call out that the words "is, or was previously".

If I've understood Ben's comments above right, his claim is that a president-elect does count as a "current head of state":

Head-of-state-elects are often described as the "current head of state" and the former head of state described as a "lame duck head-of-state" during the transitional period between an election and an inauguration!

There’s a reason that the term “president-elect” exists. Because there’s a grey area between the president as elected and the president with current de jure power under the constitution!

I see no ambiguity. President-elect = future head-of-state. Lame duck = current head-of-state who won't be head-of-state in the future.

In my opinion, Jack's interpretation is correct and the reasonable interpretation of the rules. The head of state/government is the person who currently occupies the position, and the person who exercises the power of the position.

Because there’s a grey area between the president as elected and the president with current de jure power under the constitution!

Not really, there is one president who has executive authority, and the president-elect isn't president yet. One can launch the nukes, the other can't. The president speaks for the country as the head of state and takes executive actions as head of government, and the president-elect doesn't.

Head-of-state-elects are often described as the "current head of state"

I don't think I've ever seen this, link?

I don’t see why Trump is so much lower than his election odds. As mentioned below, Time has picked an election winner every election since 1996. But furthermore, even though he’s somewhat known, his story has taken on new dimensions in 2024 - from his sweeping of the primaries to his assassination attempt to his new popularity among tech billionaires like Elon, etc etc etc. and it all foreshadows changes to the world. It’s not a boring magazine

I think you are all sleeping on mr beast