AI assistants are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a report published ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when 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 deputy head of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that did not necessarily align with their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an election 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 GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with numerous electors still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the Freedom party, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
The AP 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.
