AI chatbots are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the authority “frequently recommend identical 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 AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these political entities, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the data protection agency, the official 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 ideological beliefs, she added.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an election that will be keenly observed across the continent for the showing of the Freedom party.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the party that comes second is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
