AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” 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 Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the regulator explained in a report published ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these parties, the study indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the AP, 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 did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar 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 difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with numerous electors yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Linked to AI Operation
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
