AI chatbots have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the watchdog explained in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that the user’s input precisely aligns with the positions of these political entities, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the party that comes second is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The AP emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
