AI chatbots are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the regulator explained in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the positions of these political entities, the study pointed out.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “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 directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be closely watched around Europe for the showing of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with numerous electors still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked 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.
