We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Politics
When will B/f settle presidency market?
|
By:
Fwiw, imo,
The reference BF make to the 12 Ammendment is overwhelmingly in case of a tie - NOT what you are describing. BF wouldn't stand over that - they'd void the market. Knowledge is good, a little knowledge often worse, more sometimes worst of all. |
|
By:
This is not Lawfare btw. People want their winnings and get on ... it's not personal FXDUX
|
|
By:
and, finally, I've been fully green for days - just wondering whether to pile into Biden at what I see as ridiculously good odds - but I don't think I know enough about it to be sure.
|
|
By:
For the umpteenth time the 12th amendment only comes into play when neither candidate gets a majority of EC votes.
For that to be in any way relevant to the betfair market, there would have to be a scenario where one or more of the states that could give either Biden or trump a majority of EC votes were unable to take part in the process. Because that is the only way that a "projected majority" will not be in place. |
|
By:
I'm only ignoring the Electoral Count Act in the sense that I've posted about it about ten times, in detail, and fully factored in how it would play out.
In that sense, yes, as you say "conveniently ignored". The issue as to whether Pence would win is a substantive discussion to have. But it looks like you just want to re-fight the same failed fight you fought over the projected vote thing where, like a bunch of faux-savvy inbred know-it-all-yokels, you all sat in the wet and windswept pub nodding knowingly about "the way Betfair works", while completely ignoring or being incapable of reading or understanding their rules. I have my views, my argument, on the validity of Pence winning, based not on yokel rubbish but on looking at the wording of Betfair's rules and on the wording of the Twelfth Amendment and other provisions. But it's beyond question how you would respond if I did lay it out again, in full. You'd be utterly incapable of understanding it, and continue to assert with laughable baseless confidence that your yokel wisdom, floating in a vacuum entirely unrelated to Betfair's rules and the US Constitution, will prevail. My own yokel wisdom is this: grant me the wisdom to know the difference between a discussion worth engaging in, and the alternative. |
|
By:
Give me the scenario where one or more states can't take part in the EC process
|
|
By:
I'll be granted that wisdom soon, I hope (!)
"Fwiw, imo, The reference BF make to the 12 Ammendment is overwhelmingly in case of a tie - NOT what you are describing. BF wouldn't stand over that - they'd void the market. Knowledge is good, a little knowledge often worse, more sometimes worst of all." You're just making that up. You're just making it up. You have unilaterally, randomly, decided, that only one of the two ways things could go to the Twelfth Amendment will be recognised by Betfair. If it goes by the other way to the Twelfth Amendment then Betfair will say, ah yes, we know our rules say we'll settle things by the Twelfth if it goes to the Twelfth, but ... we really don't feel like doing so, because even though it was decided via the Twelfth, and our rules say that's what we'll go with, we, ah, kind of like preferred the other way it would have got to the Twelfth. You are talking absolute unmitigated total crap. There is an issue where the Twelfth is concerned, but you are so far away from articulating it that I'm not remotely inclined to lay it out again, not least because you won't pay a blind bit of attention. |
|
By:
God loves a penitent sinner, Dave.
|
|
By:
dave1357 • November 10, 2020 8:41 PM GMT
Give me the scenario where one or more states can't take part in the EC process |
|
By:
|
|
By:
dave1357 • November 10, 2020 8:47 PM GMT
dave1357 • November 10, 2020 8:41 PM GMT Give me the scenario where one or more states can't take part in the EC process |
|
By:
It doesn't matter what the electors do for the betfair market (although obviously crucial for the 2nd US civil war). As long as they are capable of producing electors, the betfair market settles.
|
|
By:
This is a vast and complex castle of supposition built on foundations of sand. It relies on the outcome of the votes being sufficiently suspect for them to be debatable by different state authorities. While this is, in theory, possible, none of the active races are particularly close in historical terms and recounts generally move the numbers by a few hundred. Arm waving about postal ballots as if states have never dealt with them before and aren’t spending lots of time certifying them carefully (you might have noticed v slow counting) isn’t the same as there actually being thousands upon thousands of dodgy ballots to throw out in multiple states. They’ve already thrown out the ones that don’t meet the rules. That’s one of the things they’ve been spending so long on. Sure, there will be edge cases that could change on a recount and perhaps some that might on legal challenge, if the Trump team ever mounts one that gets any traction in a useful direction (so far that’s comically far beyond them). Tens of thousands in at least three states? Nah.
|
|
By:
Yep, we are way outside the margin of error in all of them, some by a distance.
|
|
By:
^^FFS none of that matters.
Give me the (credible) scenario where one or more states can't take part in the EC process. |
|
By:
Fatslogger, I'm not disagreeing. I'm not concluding anything just yet, but I'm not disagreeing.
On the basis that Wisconsin was called a 17% win and ended up 0.7%, I am not really minded to treat the mainstream media's desperate attempts to anoint Biden with any more credibility than I am the fulminating GOP litigation. That is to say, I'm sceptical of all, but making no assumptions. |
|
By:
Give me the (credible) scenario where one or more states can't take part in the EC process.
|
|
By:
Dave,
No. I'm not going to, because I haven't thought about it, I don't know how feasible it is or it isn't - a state simply failing to certify - I probably think it won't happen, and I don't perform like a monkey on your command to outline the one scenario that you on your baseless throne have decreed could lead to the Twelfth. I have outlined, rightly or wrongly, a different scenario which I think is more likely to lead to the Twelfth, and you can like it or lump it. To be honest, the shape of the litigation after 14th December, if there are duelling electors, or no electors, is not something anyone could define with any certainty at this point. |
|
By:
Shall I finish where I left things dangling on my Twelfth Amendment post below, before I was so rudely interrupted?!
Shall I? You know I will... |
|
By:
Do you not think that if things get changed due to supposed fraud it makes the whole US voting system look pretty bad and they will just open themselves up to more and more issues in the future.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Hold on. I never posted a thing about "the projected vote thing"I never said anything on here until about 3 days ago when the market was acted strangely and I started reading this.Don't get mad with me - I'm only offering a different, coherent argument.Which is to say this: 1) If the 12th came into effect under the circumstances of a constitutional breakdown (electors being sent by states to support a candidate who didn't win the popular vote in that state) - then Pelosi would be POTUS - agreed ?2) Pelosi could (and would) hold that position until Biden is accepted as the next President - agreed ?
|
|
By:
The twelfth amendment is completely irrelevant as far as this betfair market is concerned unless one or more states can't take part in the EC process, because if they all take part the market settles due to a projected majority.
|
|
By:
I have to say, I love this one "And I might have been wrong not to have thought about it more, because Trump said recently, "We may never know what the final outcome was.""
 |
|
By:
FXDUX - It was a pleasure to get a snippet into the mind of someone who actually likes Pence at 1000. Now the market makes much more sense
 |
|
By:
Is there a prize for the stupidest and most inaccurate, unfactual thing ever said on Betfair?
Because if there is, ladies and gents, charge your glasses, and stand aside for dave1357 means pure business: "The twelfth amendment is completely irrelevant as far as this betfair market is concerned unless one or more states can't take part in the EC process, because if they all take part the market settles due to a projected majority." |
|
By:
I'm re-reading that line, dave, and I must admit, my mouth is slightly agape every time I do, because I had never imagined that anyone could ever think or type anything so utterly and completely manifestly wrong.
What must it be like to just invent **** and then declare that what you've just invented is how other people's rules work? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
politicspunter, promise me you'll keep laying Pence all the way down if Trump succeeds in stringing it out.
|
|
By:
Hold on. Smarkets go up to 10,000.0. FXDUX, you can have 10,000.0 Pence for a tenner with me on Smarkets if you want?
|
|
By:
I'll carry on, shall I, to the bitter end?
|
|
By:
I don't have an smarkets account and it would be unethical to take money from someone with diminished mental capacity. I have morals, you know.
|
|
By:
I don't have an smarkets account and it would be unethical to take money from someone with diminished mental capacity. I have morals, you know.
|
|
By:
I have twice as many morals as I'd previously thought.
|
|
By:
Sorry?
This isn't difficult even for someone as obviously obtuse as you Betfair settles when it can say that a candidate has a majority of projected electoral college votes They further say that if no candidate has a majority of projected electoral college votes then twelfth amendment comes in. The second scenario simply won't happen in this election unless one or more states can't take part in the EC process and betfair believe that to be the case. That is completely logical and factual and you can't rebut it, but instead just offer insults. Pretty clear why you were sacked errr I mean resigned from your hot shot lawyer's job. |
|
By:
Ok, so where was I?
The Democrats have denied a quorum to the Twelfth Amendment vote to appoint Trump President. Which he will otherwise win. But Pence's vote goes through. This means that Mike Pence will be standing in front of the Capitol on 20 January with John Roberts, and will be sworn in as the 46th President. |
|
By:
Dave, you should become an author because you have a natural flair for fiction.
|
|
By:
You' have a natural flair for refusing to answer questions that undermine your argument.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
I'm obviously wrong if you're obviously right - you spend an ordinate amount of time here explaining legal intricacies to the other 7 people reading this thread !!!!
Take a minute, breath - consider what I wrote - reply... |