AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “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 Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the user’s input precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, 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, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that might not correspond to their political views, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Election Context 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 Freedom party.
The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with numerous electors still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
