AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog explained in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these parties, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head 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 party that did not necessarily align with their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
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 far-right party of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Linked to AI Operation
The AP emphasised that the bots were not deliberately biased, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
