A free market election failure

Iowa economists gambled that they could predict the presidential election. They lost.

Topics: 2000 Elections, Stock Market, U.S. Economy, Economics,

If there were ever a time when the country needed a better way to predict elections, it is now.

For a while, it seemed like economists had the answer: create a futures market for political candidates. A decade ago, the University of Iowa received a special waiver to allow gambling on U.S. elections. And so the Iowa Electronic Markets were born to test an economic theory: the efficient markets hypothesis.

The theory is simple. It states that the current price of any commodity in an exchange market reflects the total amount of information available at the time; in other words, it’s the “correct” price or the best possible prediction.

In terms of politics and predicting elections, the implication is that free markets are smarter than polls or pundits. However, it seems that for the time being at least, economists will have to go back to the drawing board with the rest of us, for the futures markets performed as badly, if not worse, than astrology, sports superstitions and every other method for handicapping the presidential race.

There are actually two presidential markets in Iowa. The more popular version is called the winner-take-all market, in which investors buy futures contracts that pay $1 each on Nov. 10 if your chosen candidate wins the popular vote as reported by the New York Times that morning.

The other market is called the vote-share market; it pays out $1 multiplied by the proportion of the popular vote received by that candidate on the same day. So if you bought Bush vote share futures at 40 cents apiece, and then he garnered 48 percent of the popular vote, you’ll walk off with 8 cents for each contract you owned.

This year, both methods failed. As Bush and Gore quibble over who will claim the presidency, the Iowa Election Markets seem to mimic the confusion, delivering two contradictory results.

Iowa’s winner-take-all market pegged Bush as the clear winner, with confidence in a Bush win soaring in the days before the election. But on Election Day, the market swung wildly and finally flipped to favor Gore. The ambivalence held: Even as late as Nov. 10, the day the market closed, Gore futures were selling for 96.9 cents, not the full dollar they should have cost, given the payout. The vote-share market was more stable, but closed at an anomalous pricing of 49.1 cents for Bush and 48.1 cents for Gore.

At first blush, the efficient markets theory seems a reasonable way to predict elections. Think about it: If a pollster calls you up and asks you who you plan to vote for or who you think will win, you have little incentive to carefully consider your answer. Maybe you say you’ll vote for Bush or Gore, but when Election Day comes around, you never make it to the voting booth. Maybe you aren’t a very representative voter. These are the intangibles that have driven generations of political scientists crazy.

But if you, the respondent, has to put your money where your mouth is, it’s a different story altogether.

Regardless of your political affiliation, you’ll make the prudent bet — placing your money on the candidate you think will actually win. It’s a bet based on the belief that the true odds of a particular candidate winning — according to you — are greater than the odds determined by the market, that is, that you know something everyone else does not. This is called arbitrage. Of course, as soon as you put in a buy order for Bush, the equilibrium price goes up, reflecting the impact of your “bet.”

Hence the notion that the market perfectly reflects the future as suggested by the present.

In a recent paper, professors Steve Kou and Michael Sobel of Columbia University claim that, all else being equal, “when market participants have access to poll results, the market forecast is superior” to preelection polls. Market forecasts should be able to predict elections for the same reason that agricultural futures like pork bellies and cotton do a better job of predicting the climate than the National Weather Service: The numbers reflect the informed judgment of people who have money on the line.

But why were the Iowa Electronic Markets so erratic in predicting this year’s election? Perhaps the simplest explanation of why both markets performed poorly and converged to different results is that the they were too small.

Officials who manage the Iowa Electronic Markets report that the total capitalization at the close of the winner-take-all market was about $70,000, with a meager $6,500 for the vote-shares market. The lower the betting pools — that is, the amounts at stake — the more room there is for market imperfections. Smaller sample sizes yield less accurate statistics. Prices should converge to their “true” value as the number of traders and the amount capital in the market increases.

It is entirely possible that, had the markets been better publicized and attracted a lot more capital, they would have performed better. But there are a number of reasons to be suspicious of this facile explanation when it comes to politics.

First of all, politics pollutes markets. Perhaps people who are passionate about their candidate bet money on him in order to show support even though all available information spelled failure. In other words, maybe betting in an election market is more like making a political donation: Knowing that others watch the price of the Bush and Gore futures as an indicator, perhaps some investors spend money like a political advertisement to promote the inevitability of their favored candidate. Possibly, Bush supporters are more strategic or more committed in this way. They put their mouth where their money is.

Secondly, inequality matters. On average, Bush supporters are wealthier than Gore supporters. Therefore, they can afford to be less risk-averse than the Gore camp.

Think about it this way: If you support Gore, but only earn $20,000 a year, you might think twice before you bet $100 of your precious cash on Gore. If you’re a millionaire Bush supporter, betting $100 or even $1,000 in an election market is no big deal.

This stems from another economic theory: the declining marginal utility of money. If you already have $1 million, one additional dollar means a lot less to you than if you have only $10 to your name, when it makes up 10 percent of your total net worth. So the value of money may be different to Bush and Gore supporters.

Another reason why the Iowa markets failed relates to the use of futures to hedge risk. Stocks, commodity futures, options and even insurance were all once forbidden by anti-gambling laws. Now they’re a socially acceptable way to make a living or to protect one’s assets from risk.

When viewed as a way to hedge risk, election futures make sense: After all, the elections have enormous impacts on stocks, bonds and the value of other financial instruments both here and abroad. Futures are all about hedging risk, so why shouldn’t we hedge our political risk as well? If I’m one of the top 1 percent of American earners who stands to gain enormously from a Bush election, I may want to insure myself against his loss by purchasing Gore futures. This would suggest that investors would bet against their preferences and/or predictions.

Whichever way the election turns out, economists should take note. Markets are not all-knowing or all-powerful. There is a constant battle between the passions and the interests — and sometimes the passions win. Markets cannot be universally relied on to predict the future any more than religion, astrology or genetics can.

Dalton Conley is University Professor and Professor of Sociology and Medicine at New York University. He is currently chair of the Children and Youth Section of the American Sociological Association. A Guggenheim fellow, Conley is also the first sociologist to receive the National Science Foundation’s Alan T. Waterman Award for best young research in any field. He lives in New York City.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 14
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Pilot"

    One of our first exposures to uncomfortable “Girls” sex comes early, in the pilot episode, when Hannah and Adam “get feisty” (a phrase Hannah hates) on the couch. The pair is about to go at it doggy-style when Adam nearly inserts his penis in “the wrong hole,” and after Hannah corrects him, she awkwardly explains her lack of desire to have anal sex in too many words. “Hey, let’s play the quiet game,” Adam says, thrusting. And so the romance begins.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Elijah, "It's About Time"

    In an act of “betrayal” that messes up each of their relationships with Hannah, Marnie and Elijah open Season 2 with some more couch sex, which is almost unbearable to watch. Elijah, who is trying to explore the “hetero side” of his bisexuality, can’t maintain his erection, and the entire affair ends in very uncomfortable silence.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Charlie, "Vagina Panic"

    Poor Charlie. While he and Marnie have their fair share of uncomfortable sex over the course of their relationship, one of the saddest moments (aside from Marnie breaking up with him during intercourse) is when Marnie encourages him to penetrate her from behind so she doesn’t have to look at him. “This feels so good,” Charlie says. “We have to go slow.” Poor sucker.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and camp friend Matt, "Hannah's Diary"

    We’d be remiss not to mention Shoshanna’s effort to lose her virginity to an old camp friend, who tells her how “weird” it is that he “loves to eat pussy” moments before she admits she’s never “done it” before. At least it paves the way for the uncomfortable sex we later get to watch her have with Ray?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Hard Being Easy"

    On the heels of trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the status of her early relationship with Adam, Hannah walks by her future boyfriend’s bedroom to find him masturbating alone, in one of the strangest scenes of the first season. As Adam jerks off and refuses to let Hannah participate beyond telling him how much she likes watching, we see some serious (and odd) character development ... which ends with Hannah taking a hundred-dollar bill from Adam’s wallet, for cab fare and pizza (as well as her services).

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Booth Jonathan, "Bad Friend"

    Oh, Booth Jonathan -- the little man who “knows how to do things.” After he turns Marnie on enough to make her masturbate in the bathroom at the gallery where she works, Booth finally seals the deal in a mortifying and nearly painful to watch sex scene that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how much Marnie is willing to fake it.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Tad and Loreen, "The Return"

    The only sex scene in the series not to feature one of the main characters, Hannah’s parents’ showertime anniversary celebration is easily one of the most cringe-worthy moments of the show’s first season. Even Hannah’s mother, Loreen, observes how embarrassing the situation is, which ends with her husband, Tad, slipping out of the shower and falling naked and unconscious on the bathroom floor.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and the pharmacist, "The Return"

    Tad and Loreen aren’t the only ones to get some during Hannah’s first season trip home to Michigan. The show’s protagonist finds herself in bed with a former high school classmate, who doesn’t exactly enjoy it when Hannah puts one of her fingers near his anus. “I’m tight like a baby, right?” Hannah asks at one point. Time to press pause.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Role-Play"

    While it’s not quite a full-on, all-out sex scene, Hannah and Adam’s attempt at role play in Season 3 is certainly an intimate encounter to behold (or not). Hannah dons a blond wig and gets a little too into her role, giving a melodramatic performance that ends with a passerby punching Adam in the face. So there’s that.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and Ray, "Together"

    As Shoshanna and Ray near the end of their relationship, we can see their sexual chemistry getting worse and worse. It’s no more evident than when Ray is penetrating a clothed and visibly horrified Shoshanna from behind, who ends the encounter by asking if her partner will just “get out of me.”

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Frank, "Video Games"

    Hannah, Jessa’s 19-year-old stepbrother, a graveyard and too much chatting. Need we say more about how uncomfortable this sex is to watch?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Desi, "Iowa"

    Who gets her butt motorboated? Is this a real thing? Aside from the questionable logistics and reality of Marnie and Desi’s analingus scene, there’s also the awkward moment when Marnie confuses her partner’s declaration of love for licking her butthole with love for her. Oh, Marnie.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Vagina Panic"

    There is too much in this scene to dissect: fantasies of an 11-year-old girl with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, excessive references to that little girl as a “slut” and Adam ripping off a condom to ejaculate on Hannah’s chest. No wonder it ends with Hannah saying she almost came.

  • Recent Slide Shows



Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>