We couldn't figure out what they were asking and they never showed up to clarify it, resolves N/A.

Some people were betting on one thing, others on another.

@Eliza I don't think there is ambiguity about what this market means, and I think N/A is not the best option.

@Eliza I agree with @BrunoParga that it's not ambiguous, as it turned out nobody in the CDU tried to form a coalition with the AfD and that was a clear result without need for a judgement call. This should have resolved No long ago. The fact that it didn't get resolved after the last Federal election clearly points away from my interpretation. But that was of course not a deliberate decision by the creator.

Pretty unfortunate: The other interpretation, the one discussed in the comments below, will also resolve No with 90% probability. So No will probably turn out right either way.

Anyways, as always: I applaud any decision to N/A a market, as it's the correct choice in 99,x% of disputed cases. Thanks.

@Primer "next election" means "next election". I don't see any case for N/A, and if this scenario obtains in either the SA election on Sept 6 or the MVP one two weeks later, this market will have been unfairly misresolved.

@Eliza please un-N/A.

@BrunoParga The market was created before the Bundestagswahl. The next election usually refers to the next Bundestagswahl. Even if... then it should have resolved after the next election in former Eastern Germany.

And why "try to"?

But yeah, under both interpretations this should have already resolved No.

@Primer yes, without context "the next election" refers to national elections, but this market is not without context. It clearly refers to state elections.

And coalition negotiations often fail, hence "try to".

@Primer there is always a next federal election, so every market is always created before a federal election.

@BrunoParga "next election". Singular. That was either the Bundestagswahl, or (if it was supposed to refer to an election in eastern Germany) one of Sachsen or Thüringen back in 2024. Resolves No for all of those.

@Primer that is preposterous. You're grasping at straws.

@BrunoParga ? I'd expect profit from my positions either way. N/A goes against my personal interest in this market

(My main interest is prediction markets flourishing. To get there I want Manifold to be great. To achieve that I want better markets. To get better markets I want bad markets to resolve N/A, so people can bet on and create good markets instead. That's more important to me than expected profit in one market.)

@mods Creator inactive. Resolves No.

This market is set to close later this week, maybe it should be open until all five eastern States have had their elections? These are the respective dates:

• Brandenburg: 2024-09-22

• Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: 2026

• Saxony: 2024-09-01

• Saxony-Anhalt: 2026

• Thuringia: 2024-09-01

Berlin votes in 2026, if you want to count them.

@mods this is probably misresolved. It makes no sense to talk about forming state governments after a federal election, and the question is especially whether CDU would try to form a government with AfD in the Eastern states.

If you stand by your decision, I'd please like to know how this question could conceivably have resolved YES by your judgement.

@BrunoParga There is also another version of the same question here:

/timomm1978/will-the-cdu-in-eastern-german-stat-6a2856b03f20

Overall, it seems like the creator didn't provide good clarity on the situation. It seems to be asking about the state level elections and state level governments. Dealing with this is not obvious, but we just have to make a best effort to understand what was being asked.

I liked the approach from your original comment here, but I think it would be a stretch to call 2026 the 'next election' since it was really far away from the time the question was asked. Let's say:

• The 'next election' meant the 2024 elections in Brandenburg, Saxony, and Thuringia (even though they weren't all on the same date, they're at least close)

• The 2026 elections for the places listed won't matter

Is there anything from your original comment in January 2024 that did not play out as expected? If so, I'd resolve both of these similar markets to No.

@Eliza, thank you for your comment. I think it is fairly common to talk of "the next elections", whenever they're scheduled to be held; they could even happen earlier than the dates I mentioned, by means of early dissolutions. I think the text of the question is quite clear, with the possible exception of whether Berlin counts.

But in the end, if this stays resolved as NO, which based on the date of resolution I believe was done due to the federal elections, then I guess it is what it is...

@BrunoParga My guess is the market got on anyone's radar again because of the federal elections, but let's ignore the actual timing, it's not relevant to the market at all.

How about we reopen this one (and also the other one), and wait until the at least the last two states listed have also had elections. And ignore Berlin.

@Eliza And if @timomm1978 shows up again, they can clarify and/or resolve however they see fit.

(I still think someone can construct an argument that the market only referred to the 3 with elections in 2024...)

@Eliza I think reopening until the MVP and Saxony-Anhalt elections is the best course of action. Berlin is a gray area and frankly it's not the one where the question might resolve YES anyway, so ignoring it is fine. And sure, if the creator comes back, it's their market (though I hope they'll clarify whatever decision they make).

I think your proposed solution is good.

@Eliza "and wait until the at least the last two states listed have also had elections" There's no states listed anymore as the description is gone...? I think this makes the market even more ambiguous (and it's already plenty ambiguous!).

@Primer There never was a description, Bruno's comment listed 5 states, two of which had not had elections yet. We're trying to figure out what they were asking.

Since we've waited this long it would be kind of silly to change it to N/A.

I think moderators are allowed to update the description now, which was not the case 9 months ago. If someone can summarize the above discussion into a new description we could go with that.

@Eliza I'm not sure this market was ever meant to refer to the state elections in the first place. The question "Will some state associations of the CDU in Eastern Germany advocate for forming a Government with the AfD after the next Federal Election [the one which by now already happened]?" was a pretty reasonable thing to ask back then and was what I initially bet on. Otherwise, why would there be "try to"?