Is betting on election outcomes ethical?

By Simon Longstaff

A version of this article was first published: The Sunday Age - 11 November 2007

Gambling is the practice of undertaking the risk of loss in the hope of reward. Some gambling is based on random events – other types allow for the exercise of a measure of judgement. As such, gambling is, in itself, a rather benign practice.

However, it is a practice that attracts (and even generates) some rather nasty ‘externalities’ such as addiction and organised crime. Some people are addicted to work, some to sex – this does not make either work or sex evil – just the addiction.

The same could be said of gambling – except for the fact that gaming companies have a regrettable tendency to heighten the addictive attributes of their games.

So, if gambling is not always bad, does this mean that betting on elections is okay? The first thing to consider is whether or not there are some events that should never be the subject of wagering. If there are such events, then we might ask if elections should be counted among their number.

Let me give an example of the kind of thing that I think people should never bet on. Imagine that you are present when someone is at risk of drowning. Before you can decide what to do, a bookie approaches and says, “I’m running a book on how long that kiddie can stay afloat. Do you want to lay a bet?” I hope that everyone would agree that to bet on such an event would be reprehensible. Why? Because we know that such circumstances are too serious to count as an opportunity for entertainment or enrichment. We know that such events command our attention and active engagement. What kind of person would lay a wager when they might instead help to mount a rescue?

My use of an admittedly extreme example tells us that there are at least some things that should not be taken as an opportunity to gamble. So, what of elections? Although elections may not be as serious a matter as the life or death of a child, they are nonetheless incredibly significant. Other than volunteering to go to war, there is hardly any task more important, for a citizen in a democracy, than to elect a parliament to enact laws and from which members of the government will be drawn. The problem is that we have lost sight of the significance of elections – a product of the trivialising of politics and parliaments.

Presumably, unsentimental (and therefore sensible) gamblers place their bets on those who they think will win rather than those who they think should win. This is hardly a problem when the two beliefs coincide. But what if they do not? Is it appropriate to bet on the success of one party while voting for another? For some it may be prudent to do so. But the conditions under which this can occur must surely work against achieving an entirely honest expression of voter preferences at the ballot box. Of course, people vote with a degree of self-interest, whether they bet on the result or not. However, there can be little hope for broader issues of national interest to be taken into account when at odds with the risk of losing a significant wager.

Even if betting on elections is to be allowed for most people, there should be strict prohibitions against gambling by others. Candidates, their staff and officials in political parties should be barred from laying bets. We don’t let jockeys bet – for the simple reason that too many would be tempted to ‘run dead’. The same should be true in politics – especially in an age of waning ideological conviction.  It would make the democratic contest a complete sham if candidates had a vested interest in losing their bid for election in order to win the bet.

We should remember that democratic elections are not something done by ‘other people’. We are all actively engaged in the process – we too are ‘players’ and not just punters.