AI chatbots are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, raising alarms about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the watchdog noted in a analysis released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the user’s input precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the study pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, stated that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that might not correspond to their political views, 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 election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be closely watched across the continent for the performance of the PVV.
The far-right party of Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the party that comes second is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Linked to AI Operation
The authority 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.
