Gambling on political elections is currently illegal throughout the nation, but many casinos would like to change that. They argue that it is more beneficial to pass laws that legalize, but regulate the gambling, as opposed to the continuity of illegal gambling going on as it is today. Currently, regulations on gambling are mostly out of the state and national governments' hands, so casinos argue that it would benefit the country to be able to regulate and tax it.
In 2014, the Nevada politician attempted to get a bill passed in order to legalize political gambling, but it was rejected before even making it to the state legislature.
What are your opinions on whether gambling on political elections should be legalized?
What does the previous failure to pass this bill in Nevada say about the probability of this happening in the near future?
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/12/politics/gambling-on-elections/index.html
10 comments:
The prospect of opening gambling for the presidential race in casinos is ridiculous. The casinos claim that this will help them to control the gambling rather than having it occur under illegal conditions; however, the motives of these casino executives lie in their want for more profit and money. Naturally, they will do whatever needed to have a law passed that will increase revenues. The heads of casinos are right on the idea that a presidential gamble would be larger than the Super Bowl and would make millions for the industry. This is bolsters the idea that their true motive lies in money and not at all in the idea of improving conditions and regulations for gambling. Luckily, I find it unlikely the bill will ever be passed. The creation of a betting system for the presidential candidacy could drastically alter the way the people vote and could add to much weight to the loss or win of a candidate. Essentially, such a system would place to high a monetary value on the outcome of the election and would only add to the corruption seen in politics. Citizens may begin to vote based on what will bring in the highest profits based on how they bet. However, the government does seem to recognize the high risks of such a system and they are reluctant to even consider the proposition. As long as the politicians in office continue to see the problems with such a system and to vote against it, there should be little concern surrounding whether or not this will be allowed.
Gambling on presidential elections is just like gambling on anything else, and for this reason the government should continue to ban it. Gambling is simply the addition of risk and money to a game or competition. This adds to its appeal, but also drastically increases its impact. Addiction to it is the main reason why the government bans it in most places -- to protect citizens' wallets. A presidential election might have a bigger scope than a horse race, but it carries the same detriments of gambling.
In fact, gambling on elections could even be worse than the status quo. Money is already very influential in elections, and it would be even more so if wealthy gamblers paid very high sums to ensure their pick will win. This makes the purpose of politics into profit, which further alienates it from actual reasonable policy.
In short, no, we should not gamble on elections.
Gambling on presidential elections should not be allowed due to the fact that it would encourage gambling, a highly addictive hobby that has left many a person in extreme debt. There are already so many intense regulations on gambling due the addictive tendencies it nurtures that it is highly unlikely that the government would allow the presidential election to be bet on. In 2013 Americans managed to loose $119 billion gambling. This is an incomprehensible amount of money lost to this growing industry that will only take more away from people. Gambling addicts are looking for the thrill they receive when they win, however the odds are very against winning. Although citizen participation in the presidential elections have recently gone and it is possible that adding the aspect of gambling may cause more excitement and interest in the election process, many american's wallets would be at risk and also the government would be categorized as a game. It is the governments responsibility to act to protect the American people and by allowing gambling on the presidential election they would not be protecting but rather feeding a growing addiction that Americans are suffering from. Additionally, allowing this would not make the government look good; the election would go from being an important, respectable decision-making process to a game just the same as slot machines and horse races. In conclusion, though there is appeal in permit gambling on the presidential election it should not be allowed so as to protect the citizens and the reputation of the government.
http://theweek.com/articles/451623/how-did-americans-manage-lose-119-billion-gambling-last-year
I believe gambling is a foolish, if not cancerous vice. It is a free country, and all Americans have the ability to spent their money how they please, but gambling has no acceptable role in politics. The favorite for the presidency should be based off the voters preferences', not Vegas'. I find it interesting that Mia noted Americans spent $119 billion on gambling in 2013, showing how it truly is a "vice" for many Americans.
One of the most prominent grievances of many candidates, and voters, is that there is too much money involved in politics. In the Democratic debate Wednesday, candidat Bernie Sanders voiced that major corporations and big business dictates politics. If you don't think that the Vegas favorite would have an inherent inside-track to the presidency, you are surely mistaken. People will turn out simply for the money.
Gambling is coming a problem in America. In sports, "daily fantasy" events, which are essentially gambling, are creating scenarios in which prominent sports-business leaders such as owners and league officials are involved in betting on games, and have partnerships with gambling organizations such as DraftKings (New York Times). Americans want to gamble, now more than ever. However, politicians will never let it have such a heavy role in politics, and therefore I don't think this bill will pass in Nevada.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/upshot/daily-fantasy-sports-and-the-hidden-cost-of-americas-weird-gambling-laws.html?_r=0
Politics nowadays is more like a boxing match and less like the formal polite discourse everyone imagines it to be. Both the Democratic Debate and the Republican Debate were announced like sports events by their subsequent host, sponsored by a multitude of companies IE. Facebook, and jam packed with commercials in between. Why can't we gamble on it? There is very little sanctity left in the political process, a chunk of Americans (including me) are more interested in charismatic political figures rather than those who stress policy. I think if Nevada continues to outlaw political gambling, it will only hurt its citizens that already gamble on political events. And besides, if you are going to Nevada, you're probably going there to gamble anyway. If the government allows this, it will protect those who gamble with shady and dangerous criminal organizations and rings. When government legalizes it and makes it safer than doing it illegally, it will have a hand in regulating it. A government cannot regulate an illegal organization especially under prohibition of any sort. I don't advocate the legalization of everything, but this seems to me like the benefits of legalization outweigh the cost. Hopefully, Nevadans will come to their senses and legalize political gambling fast before campaign season goes into full swing.
Gambling is extremely popular amongst millions of Americans. People love the thrill of guessing an outcome of a particular event and winning a large amount of money. Moreover, I strongly believe that gambling on political events should not be legalized. Although some people take gambling seriously, the majority do not. They go to the casino to have a drink, have fun and socialize with others. The government of our country is something that needs to be taken seriously. It affects how we live and how the country runs. Therefore, politics should not have anything to do with a game. At South Point Casino, the room is packed during Sunday Night Football. Jimmy Vaccaro, the casino's lead odds maker, dreamt of what the casino would look like during election day. "It would be the biggest event we'd ever booked, it would make the Super Bowl look like a high school football game." Vaccaro's statement highlights the fact that people are money minded. The primary reason Vaccaro wants the government to legalize gambling on political events is so that the casino will make a lot of money! Additionally, ss mia stated in her comment, in 2013, Americans managed to loose $119 billion gambling. This is a disgusting amount of money. If political gambling was legalized, this number would drastically increase, therefore threatening the economy of our country. More money does not need to be wasted from a selfless act such as gambling.
I never fully understood why gambling is so strictly regulated in today's society. If someone bets everything he owns on Clinton winning the election and then ends up living on the streets, its their fault, but it was also their choice to make. I don't agree with the government having so much power over what people can do with their money that they can't play a simple game of who's luckier. Sure gambling destroys plenty of lives, but so does the stock market and so does taking a loan from the bank to start a restaurant, yet both are legal. It really shouldn't matter wether or not casinos hold bets on a political election, it should be left up to the people what they can do with their money. If anything, the government should have regulations on how large of a bet a casino can hold on the campaign based on the number of participant who place their bets. All in all, casinos should be able to hold bets on the elections.
I agree and disagree with Kyle in the sense that I do believe gambling shouldn't be regulated in such a strict way. I feel that if a person is inclined to bet there own money on something then they understand the consequences of losing it. However I disagree in a way because some people don't have full control over their urges to gamble. There are people in the U.S who have gambling addictions and can't restrain themselves from gambling. In the premise of betting on elections however, I believe it is inappropriate to bet on elections because at some point you have to draw the line on gambling. It's one thing if you are gambling on a game of Texas Hold'em, it's another to gamble on the future leader of our country. I feel that politics is a serious thing, and it isn't something that should have a place in the world of casinos and gambling. Gambling is doing just fine without having betting on elections, why does it need to expand and just create more issues and conflict in our society? If you want to gamble on an election just go and vote, that is a gamble enough bet by itself.
It is easy to soar to conclusions and decide that gambling is an immoral and invaluble practice. However I must disagree with that assertion and rebutle the statement said above that "It's one thing if you are gambling on a game of Texas Hold' Em, it's another to gamble on the future leader of our country. The events or bets that occur in casinos stay there. In no circumnstance whatsoever is the gambling of the presidential canidates determining the outcome of the election and futhermore, there should be no reason for the government to interefere in gambling affairs. I think the government should have no regulation at all in regards to gambling because the casinos in which gambling occurs are not owened by our government, but rather the Native Americans. The government getting involved in gambling is a intrusion unto the rights of these casinos, and the casinos hold entitlement to perform affairs however they wish. Casinos are not on government regulated land and therefore it should not be an issue that the presidential race is being gambled over in these casinos. After all we do live in a free nation. There are certainly negatives to the gambling world such as addiction, fraud, and immorality, however in no way do these factors rule out the peoples right to gamble on anything of their choice.
The idea of gambling over a political election is ridiculous, and I don't think it will ever happen. Many people think that gambling should be illegal in every area, so making it legal in the political sphere would be absurd. I think it is obvious that it is only being advocated by the casinos, for the clear reason that it will benefit them. Anything that will give the casinos huge profits is something that they will support. Political elections broaden gambling from just people interested in sports to everyone in America. This would increase profits drastically, but take money away from millions of Americans. Politics is not something that should involve gambling. If it were made legal and enough people were involved, it may even have an effect on how people vote, so that they could make money. I believe that the majority of America is too smart to have this legalized, and that any politician willing to legalize it will never be elected in the first place.
Post a Comment