Will there be a major change with Trump's election such that the U.S. does not live in a traditional US Democracy anymore? Such conditions would include things like: Trump running for a 3rd term, declaration of Martial Law at any point, removing Supreme Court Justices or ignoring a material order from SCOTUS, Executive Branch overturning a certified election result, refusing a transition of power, etc. This will be certified "yes" if a major event occurs that is considered a fundamental ending of our democracy as we know it and multiple major news organizations declare as much.
**Update 11/15: This has received a lot more attention lately and more than I expected, so let me clarify a few things to try and help add some details around resolution and answer questions:
There will likely be many norms shattered, lines crossed, flaws in our system exposed and maybe even illegal activity over the next four years. This question is NOT asking about whether those will occur; this is about a fundamental change in our system from the American form of democracy as we have known it in modern times to something more closely aligned to a dictatorship, autocracy, theocracy, oligarchy, kingdom, etc.
In order to determine what makes us no longer living in a democracy as we know it, it helps to outline what I would say are the key components of our democracy: checks and balances, free and fair elections, the rule of law/adherence to constitution, peace and order, federalism, due process, the freedoms of speech, press, and association and obviously having an executive as opposed to a king/dictator.
I will weigh in and give some examples of things I would/wouldn’t consider as a resolving event for each of those key components of our democracy:
checks and balances: As we currently have a majority republican legislature and supreme court, there will obviously be a decrease in our “checks and balances”. As these were elected/appointed in the normal process and still have the ability to exercise their power, that of itself does not nullify our democracy. The following example would not count for a resolution: Senate allows recess appointments, as this is constitutionally allowed and has been done historically. Would count: Trump ignores a material order from the Supreme Court (as this would demonstrates the judicial check is gone)
free and fair elections: would not count - generally applicable new federal voting laws that may have an indirect benefit to republicans, such as voter id requirements. would count - voting laws that essentially guarantee republican control of government, such as an increase of 5 electoral votes for all rural states or federal gerrymandering of state’s house maps.
the rule of law/adherence to constitution: Would not count- Trumps issues executive orders that are later found to be unconstitutional (provided he does not continue to enforce such unconstitutional orders). It is not uncommon for orders/laws to be passed that are found later to be unconstitutional. Would count - Running for a third term despite 22nd amendment
peace and order: This is important because if we have a complete breakdown of society, then we can not function as a democracy.. Would not count - occasional violence or large protests that get out of control. Would count - Trump declares martial law resulting from significant internal unrest, which is maintained for an extended time or is used to quell fundamental rights.
federalism: this has already been seriously eroded over the years, as the fed government has even forced state laws through funding holdbacks (see, e.g. drinking age requirements) and “over reach” on federal laws regulating activities typically delegated to the states. So this would have to be something dramatic. Would not count - passing a federal law on abortion or holding back funds unless states adopt a law/policy (as long as the law was not an infringement on some other aspect of democracy). Would count: federal assumption of state roles, such as removal of governors or state/local police in favor of federal appointees.
due process: would not count - investigations into, or even charges, of one or two “political enemies”, provided it goes through standard, fair court process. would count - arrests of clear political enemies that do not go through normal process (e.g. military tribunals for civilians, no trials at all, etc.) or mass arrests of large numbers of “political” enemies to create a chilling effect
freedom of speech: would not count: shutting down a protest here and there, even if it ended up violent due to escalated tensions, provided it was not sustained. Would count: arresting anyone who says something bad about Trump on social media or using extreme violence to shut down an otherwise peaceful protest (like Tiananmen square) on multiple occasions or being explicit it will happen again such that it stops all protests. Thus, Kent State would not count as it did not otherwise silence all other protests that came after it.
Freedom of press: Would not count – Arresting journalists who stole government secrets. Would count: Arresting journalist who report negative stories on Trump on charges that most agree are not legitimate or Trump revokes the licenses and/or shuts down the offices of multiple new outlets critical of him due to their criticism. Would also resolve if our overall freedom of press rating drops down to 140th or worse in the global rankings of free press found here: https://rsf.org/en/index. This would put us towards the bottom in the world and below or around countries like Ethiopia, Lebanon, El Salvador, Kuwait, Libya, etc. This is the one exception where I would resolve without requiring 2 major news outlets to confirm the end of democracy, since we would no longer have a free press to do so.
Freedom of association: would not count - reducing funding for groups historically funded, such as NPR. Would count - systematic disbanding of advocacy and charitable groups that oppose trump, such as ACLU.
No king/dictator: Perhaps the most obvious, but covers breaking/ignoring the laws and norms we have to prevent having a dictator/king/authoritarian. would not count - strong man tendencies and pushing of boundaries of presidential power, such as putting the federal reserve under the executive. would count - Not leaving office at the end of his term or running as VP for a third term (this would be similar to Putin who really called the show but once ran as VP to avoid term limit rules)
I cannot specify every possible scenario that would resolve “yes” as I can’t even conceive everything that could happen. Instead, I have outlined the type of things that would qualify. Yes, it means some bit of executive decision making on my end, but I tried to make it as objective as possible by adding the requirement of 2 news sources also declaring it the end of our democracy as we know it. So it is not just my opinion, but that of 2 major news sources as well. If you are not comfortable with a tad bit of subjectivity involved or the criteria as I laid out, then please do not bet.
Regarding the 2 major news sources, to clarify, this cannot be a single person’s opinion. So an op-ed in the NYtimes that says democracy is over from a single writer is not valid. However, an editorial piece from the entire editorial board (e.g. the NYT editorial board) would count, as this is the statement of the paper. Also, that is most likely where such a story would be published, as an opinion piece. As to what counts as “major” new publication, I will consider the following U.S. media as qualifying: 1) top 20 circulation newspaper, 2) top 10 news magazine publications, 3) top 20 most visited news websites, 4) news programs on ABC, NBC or CBS, such as nightly news, Meet the Press or 60 minutes, from the anchor/moderator representing the opinion of the station. Cable networking will not count as most is opinion broadcasting, unless they made some sort of rare “station” statement saying as much as a network.
I am happy to answer questions and fix anything glaringly problematic, but as not to affect people who are placing bets based on this info, I will be doing my best to not make major changes to the criteria. Note I don’t think any of the above qualify as any changes from when people first bet, as it is more details/clarifications than changing the question in any way.
Lastly, I changed the question to no longer be conditional now that Trump was elected.
1,000
3.00Seems like a market which is experiencing too much fluctuation also great for buying cheap and reaping off later in case of trump doing trump things and this thing goes up and down.
This has received a lot more attention lately and more than I expected, so let me clarify a few things to try and help add some details around resolution and answer questions:
There will likely be many norms shattered, lines crossed, flaws in our system exposed and maybe even illegal activity over the next four years. This question is NOT asking about whether those will occur; this is about a fundamental change in our system from the American form of democracy as we have known it in modern times to something more closely aligned to a dictatorship, autocracy, theocracy, oligarchy, kingdom, etc.
In order to determine what makes us no longer living in a democracy as we know it, it helps to outline what I would say are the key components of our democracy: checks and balances, free and fair elections, the rule of law/adherence to constitution, peace and order, federalism, due process, the freedoms of speech, press, and association and obviously having an executive as opposed to a king/dictator.
I will weigh in and give some examples of things I would/wouldn’t consider as a resolving event for each of those key components of our democracy:
checks and balances: As we currently have a majority republican legislature and supreme court, there will obviously be a decrease in our “checks and balances”. As these were elected/appointed in the normal process and still have the ability to exercise their power, that of itself does not nullify our democracy. The following example would not count for a resolution: Senate allows recess appointments, as this is constitutionally allowed and has been done historically. Would count: Trump ignores a material order from the Supreme Court (as this would demonstrates the judicial check is gone)
free and fair elections: would not count - generally applicable new federal voting laws that may have an indirect benefit to republicans, such as voter id requirements. would count - voting laws that essentially guarantee republican control of government, such as an increase of 5 electoral votes for all rural states or federal gerrymandering of state’s house maps.
the rule of law/adherence to constitution: Would not count- Trumps issues executive orders that are later found to be unconstitutional (provided he does not continue to enforce such unconstitutional orders). It is not uncommon for orders/laws to be passed that are found later to be unconstitutional. Would count - Running for a third term despite 22nd amendment
peace and order: This is important because if we have a complete breakdown of society, then we can not function as a democracy.. Would not count - occasional violence or large protests that get out of control. Would count - Trump declares martial law resulting from significant internal unrest, which is maintained for an extended time or is used to quell fundamental rights.
federalism: this has already been seriously eroded over the years, as the fed government has even forced state laws through funding holdbacks (see, e.g. drinking age requirements) and “over reach” on federal laws regulating activities typically delegated to the states. So this would have to be something dramatic. Would not count - passing a federal law on abortion or holding back funds unless states adopt a law/policy (as long as the law was not an infringement on some other aspect of democracy). Would count: federal assumption of state roles, such as removal of governors or state/local police in favor of federal appointees.
due process: would not count - investigations into, or even charges, of one or two “political enemies”, provided it goes through standard, fair court process. would count - arrests of clear political enemies that do not go through normal process (e.g. military tribunals for civilians, no trials at all, etc.) or mass arrests of large numbers of “political” enemies to create a chilling effect
freedom of speech: would not count: shutting down a protest here and there, even if it ended up violent due to escalated tensions, provided it was not sustained. Would count: arresting anyone who says something bad about Trump on social media or using extreme violence to shut down an otherwise peaceful protest (like Tiananmen square) on multiple occasions or being explicit it will happen again such that it stops all protests. Thus, Kent State would not count as it did not otherwise silence all other protests that came after it.
Freedom of press: Would not count – Arresting journalists who stole government secrets. Would count: Arresting journalist who report negative stories on Trump on charges that most agree are not legitimate or Trump revokes the licenses and/or shuts down the offices of multiple new outlets critical of him due to their criticism. Would also resolve if our overall freedom of press rating drops down to 140th or worse in the global rankings of free press found here: https://rsf.org/en/index. This would put us towards the bottom in the world and below or around countries like Ethiopia, Lebanon, El Salvador, Kuwait, Libya, etc. This is the one exception where I would resolve without requiring 2 major news outlets to confirm the end of democracy, since we would no longer have a free press to do so.
Freedom of association: would not count - reducing funding for groups historically funded, such as NPR. Would count - systematic disbanding of advocacy and charitable groups that oppose trump, such as ACLU.
No king/dictator: Perhaps the most obvious, but covers breaking/ignoring the laws and norms we have to prevent having a dictator/king/authoritarian. would not count - strong man tendencies and pushing of boundaries of presidential power, such as putting the federal reserve under the executive. would count - Not leaving office at the end of his term or running as VP for a third term (this would be similar to Putin who really called the show but once ran as VP to avoid term limit rules)
I cannot specify every possible scenario that would resolve “yes” as I can’t even conceive everything that could happen. Instead, I have outlined the type of things that would qualify. Yes, it means some bit of executive decision making on my end, but I tried to make it as objective as possible by adding the requirement of 2 news sources also declaring it the end of our democracy as we know it. So it is not just my opinion, but that of 2 major news sources as well. If you are not comfortable with a tad bit of subjectivity involved or the criteria as I laid out, then please do not bet.
Regarding the 2 major news sources, to clarify, this cannot be a single person’s opinion. So an op-ed in the NYtimes that says democracy is over from a single writer is not valid. However, an editorial piece from the entire editorial board (e.g. the NYT editorial board) would count, as this is the statement of the paper. Also, that is most likely where such a story would be published, as an opinion piece. As to what counts as “major” new publication, I will consider the following U.S. media as qualifying: 1) top 20 circulation newspaper, 2) top 10 news magazine publications, 3) top 20 most visited news websites, 4) news programs on ABC, NBC or CBS, such as nightly news, Meet the Press or 60 minutes, from the anchor/moderator representing the opinion of the station. Cable networking will not count as most is opinion broadcasting, unless they made some sort of rare “station” statement saying as much as a network.
I am happy to answer questions and fix anything glaringly problematic, but as not to affect people who are placing bets based on this info, I will be doing my best to not make major changes to the criteria. Note I don’t think any of the above qualify as any changes from when people first bet, as it is more details/clarifications than changing the question in any way.
Lastly, I changed the question to no longer be conditional now that Trump was elected.
@JoshuaWilkes Technically it wouldn’t be changing the 22nd it would be adding another amendment. AFAIK they can’t be changed - if that somehow happens it probably is a failure of democracy! However it seems like the scenario you describe would be fine as long as the process to change the rule followers procedures established in the constitution
@Ansel Yeah ^
My point is that there are things that can look undemocratic that are in fact perfectly normal democratic things that do happen in other democracies.
@JoshuaWilkes when decency was something rulers cared about, if they wanted to make changes that would obviously benefit them or their party, they proposed them to be implemented after their term. If those changes were so good for democracy, they can certainly be made after their term to legitimate them. I would consider changes made to the duration of the current president term to be an erosion of democracy, and that is how they have been interpreted when made by Chavez, Morales, Correa and other fine presidents of América.
@JoshuaWilkes This is a tough one. On the one hand, we didn't always have term limits. On the other hand, we put it in place for a reason and felt it was hurtful to our democracy and could lead to essentially "popular dictatorships" where we keep electing a dictator into power (see, e.g. Russia, though of course their elections are not quite as fair and free). Given modern history has had term limits and our democracy as we know it now relies on that, and to repeal/modify the 22nd amendment specifically for one person would be to continue their power against our agreed principles that we have not done for anyone else. Also, it would be done through representative electors (either congress or state legislatures) and not through an actual direct will of the people (i.e. it could be done by a small number of influential people who are close to the president and influenced by him). So, I would consider a repeal/amendment of the 22nd amendment allowing Trump to run for a third term and him becoming the nominee to resolve "yes".
The comments below are harsh. This is a fine question and getting really good criteria will be hard. I support you @JRR (even if I'm just profiting off bad mood voting).
@DanielSacks It doesn't mean anything, there is still almost no liquidity in this market, the probability can change from almost nothing.
@DannyMac I tried to provide a bit more details, please see update in description. I am not looking for the outcome of one thing to happen, but a broader question of a breakdown of our democracy.
@mathvc I don't think I can ever make this "crystal clear", but I tried to provide some more details. Please see updated description
I'd like to suggest a few things to the list of democracy flaws: felons running for office before fully serving their sentence, politically-appointed prosecutors, politically-appointed electoral commissions, judges that are elected or appointed rather than selected on merit, an upper house that's more powerful even though it's much smaller and completely disproportional, not all votes being worth the same, different voting rights based on where you're located, lack of abstract constitutionality control (initiating a lawsuit at the constitutional court to declare an act unconstitutional), a two-party system deeply entrenched in electoral laws...
What do you think, can you add these things?
@BrunoParga well I certainly agree that those things are all democracy flaws (as well as many others I can name), that is not really what the question is. I'm guessing you know that and are just making a point, but this is about an end to the entirety of our current democracy.
@JRR aka, "yes, we know it's already ended, bit this market is more about it being even more ended than it is currently!".😂