AI chatbots are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots tested by the authority “often end up with the same 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 centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the positions of these political entities, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, 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 might not correspond to their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the showing of the PVV.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the PVV, meaning the party that comes second is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The AP emphasised that the bots were not deliberately biased, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
