AI chatbots are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, raising alarms about a possible risk to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the watchdog explained in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these parties, the study pointed out.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group 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 thus caution against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
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 Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with numerous electors yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
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.
