Of course you’ve heard of the website PredictIt. You bet small amounts of money for and against future political events, like whether Republicans are going to take the House in November 2022. The aggregate of everybody’s bets generates a collective prediction about the future, by changing the price through supply and demand for contracts on the opposing predictions. If you believe that the market’s current prediction is wrong, then you can make money by betting against the market’s current prediction. If a bunch of people think that the market’s current prediction is wrong, then their bets should adjust the market’s current prediction by changing the prices of the prediction contracts. Thus, the betting market’s prediction should self-correct as better information becomes available, and as more people with diverse information enter the market.
So here is a Radical Idea. Let's ask PredictIt to start a betting market on whether the U.S. House of Representatives will vote by March 25, 2022 to end unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war-blockade-famine-genocide in Yemen.
Why this date: because it will be the seventh anniversary of the war.
Why it is plausible that this could happen: because California Rep. Ro Khanna threatened to introduce a new Yemen War Powers Resolution in a recent MSNBC interview; because he has introduced such a resolution before; because if he does introduce such a resolution, then according to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which is the Law of the Land, it should force a vote; because the House has passed such a resolution before, when Trump was POTUS; because in the past, such resolutions were sometimes introduced in March, in part because it was the anniversary of the war. And because the Friends Committee for National Liberation is openly campaigning for it.
Why it is plausible that this might not happen: Ro might not follow through on his threat; they might end the war first, in which case it would be moot; House Democratic leadership could use parliamentary tricks to block the vote, as then House Speaker Paul Ryan did in the past; opponents of the war could lose the vote, because Democratic control of the House is narrow, and because some Ds might defect; because the Biden Administration might lobby against; and because most House Republicans are in the tank for the Saudi regime now.
Why this market would be interesting and useful for humanity: what happens in DC in general, and in this case in particular, is significantly the product of gaslighting and other forms of psychological warfare. A bunch of people very much want this to happen. Some people don't want this to happen. It is in the interest of people who don't want this to happen to claim that it is Impossible. It is in the Interest of people who want this to happen to claim that it is Inevitable. Let them all put their money where their mouths are. As Framer James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." That is, ambition must be made to serve the public interest.
Furthermore: every actor in Washington, in calculating their current moves, is trying to anticipate the future. If we could convince the Biden Administration that it is 100% certain that the House will vote by March to end the war, then it is very likely that they would act to pre-empt this politically embarrassing defeat by ending the war first. As a bettor in the Yes market who wants to end the war, I would lose my bet with a song in my heart, if the reason that I lost my bet was that the Biden Administration pre-empted the vote by ending the war first. I would "pay any price, bear any burden," to lose my bet, if the reason I was losing my bet was because the Biden Administration pre-empted the vote by ending the war first. That's always the ultimate goal, that's always the Holy Grail: end the war as soon as possible, save the starving children as soon as possible. Everything else is a means to this end.
What do you think? Did I make a good case?