AI assistants have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a report published ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested 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 user’s input precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be closely watched across the continent for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with numerous electors yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Linked to AI Operation
The AP stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
