A (5:11)
So. Right. And so here's to me, like, yes, I think it's just interesting in the fact that it will be the first time where a different factor and a different type of quantitative analysis will be used in real decisions around elections. But I think there's a bigger picture to this too. Right? So I get that the traditionalists now are grasping at their pearls or like, how dare we replace the tried and true method of polling with something new online. But look, politics overall today, and this is obviously sort of a theme of this podcast in general, is it's far too controlled by either hardcore ideologues or powerful insiders, whether it be party leaders or union bosses or industry coalitions, pundits or major donors. And so much of what gets done in government either reflects the interest of the vocal ideological extremes or the powerful few. And it's all at the expense of the people as a whole. And that's why the public is so wildly distrustful of their government. And then when you add on the reality of how we elect people, which obviously our listeners are tired of hearing, which is that gerrymandering means only primaries matter in 90 plus percent of elections, and primary turnout around 10%, that's mainly made up of ideologues and special interests, means you got a democracy that is designed to only reflect the interests of the extremes and the powerful, again at the expense of everyone else. And that's not a sustainable method like that model will just not exist in perpetuity. And one of the ways that it might not exist is the country itself might cease to exist. And on top of that, the approach favored by the insiders isn't even necessarily the best approach to win for their own party. Right? So take the democratic presidential primary process. They have structured debates, completely controlled and scripted by the party, scripted events and rallies where the signs that they look handmade, they're actually mass produced. It's all bullshit. And the decisions of the people who are controlling the process, they almost entirely live inside the bubble of D.C. inside that ecosystem. And they, in many ways influence both the process, for sure, and the outcomes. That's why you get candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris who might have been qualified, maybe in each case more qualified than the people they were running against. And. But the voters didn't want them, right? And the people on the inside, they want them because either they can't think like the voters, or more likely, they're thinking about what will benefit me, how will I get the, you know, deputy special counsel to the undersecretary of the VA or whatever job, wherever the fuck it is they're trying to get. And so they missed the larger point. The prediction markets are not subject to these people at all. Right? Their data exists totally, almost totally independently of the political ecosystem. And I think that's a really good thing, because I think we need to make government and politics far more accessible. I think we need to democratize democracy itself. So obviously, we believe that that means making voting easier by putting it on people's phones. I think it means giving people the tools to directly influence public policy by them understanding how politicians think and what they need, how campaigns work, both electoral, but even more important, legislative and regulatory, and how they can use the Internet itself and the different resources, you know, online to shape legislation and regulations. And it means better capturing the wisdom of the crowd when analyzing elections. So. And also, the more that regular people take an active interest in elections, the more they'll vote, the more they'll pay attention, the more they'll get involved, and the more they'll hold their leaders accountable. And that makes it harder for the ideologues and special interests to totally dictate the agenda. And it makes it harder for demagogues on both sides of the aisles to constantly lie and get away with it. So is polling going away? No. And is good independent polling valuable? Absolutely. But I think bringing in new ways of determining public sentiment is also valuable. I think it's valuable to just ask AI what it thinks people think. And as prediction markets kind of continue to evolve, the sentiment will become even more widespread and more accurate. And that's better data points for reporters, donors, endorsers, and ultimately the voters themselves. And look, the final point here is, I get it. It's a change in the way things are done, and change always scares people in power. But unless you're really happy with the way things are, who could disagree that we need change? We need desperately. The system, the way that it's constructed, is not gonna hold it's already breaking. We already have Donald Trump. And so if you wanna move power back away from the extremes and back to the people, then you need different methodologies, tools provided different tools to do it. And I think the prediction markets is a useful step towards that.