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 potential threat to democratic processes just over a week before the country’s general election.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the watchdog noted in a report released 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 moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these parties, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that might not correspond to their political views, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed across the continent for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, implying the party that comes second is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The authority 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.
