AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, raising alarms about a possible risk to democratic processes just over a week before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the study pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with numerous electors still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, implying the party that comes second is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to AI Operation
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.
