I'm fascinated by the promise of prediction markets (like Intrade) that allow users to buy and sell predictions about candidates and elections, among other things. I mean, if we "public will" advocacy types believe that Americans can and should be more involved in setting the political and policy agenda, picking winners, etc., then this sort of system for commenting on the chances of various candidates is a lot more democratic than listening to various TV pundits shout their opinions.

Also, what with the popularity of the wisdom of crowds and all, we thought we'd be getting better, more nuanced information from prediction markets because there are so many more players involved. There are some problems though; it turns out, according to Wired Magazine, that during this primary season prediction markets have made all the same moves as the pundit pros:

Like financial markets, prediction markets are big information processors, distilling the collective wisdom of their traders. But the success of any market depends upon the stakes and the pool of traders. Most prediction markets aren't anywhere near as robust as those they emulate on Wall Street. "They are thin, trading volumes are anemic, and the dollar amounts at risk are pitifully small," market analyst Barry Ritholtz wrote in January. That opens them up to all kinds of problems as information processors. Political markets, for example, have a lot of political junkies but few real insiders or outsiders, so they're not very good at catching something the polls might miss.

There's another unsettling thing about prediction markets used to gauge candidates (or policies). They're quantitative -- totally focused on the odds of who will win, not on who should win or why. It may be possible to grease the wheels of these markets so that they become better predictors, yes, but odds are that excellent odds-making does not an excellent leader make.