AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots evaluated by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a report 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 progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the report pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the data protection agency, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed 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 seems to be closing, with numerous electors still undecided.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the bots were not deliberately biased, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the way AI chatbots operate.
