AI assistants are proving 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 the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator noted in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these political entities, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that might not correspond to their political views, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an election 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 gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with numerous electors 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.
Unintentional Bias Attributed 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.
