The US presidential election has reached its climax, but the focus of this writing is on markets and companies, not politics. Election markets have grown and inserted themselves into the political discourse, allowing people to predict various subsets of the election. These markets did well in forecasting the election outcome, but also had their limitations. Polling has a long history, dating back to ancient Greece and Rome, and has evolved over time, but still has its flaws. Poll aggregators, like Real Clear Politics, average out individual polls to provide a more precise estimate, but can still induce bias. In recent years, polling has faced challenges, such as the rise of smartphones and call screening, making it harder to get accurate samples. Political markets, like Polymarket and Kalshi, have stepped in to fill the gap, providing a measure of what investors think about who will win the election. These markets have their own limitations, such as volatility and potential biases, but have the advantage of being more dynamic and reflecting real-time responses to events. The concept of trusting crowd judgments is not unique to politics, and can be seen in various aspects of life, such as movie ratings and product reviews. However, markets introduce an entry fee, making participants more accountable for their views, and can provide a more accurate reflection of information and opinions.