AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
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 former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these political entities, the study indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed around Europe for the showing of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the Freedom party, implying the party that comes second is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
