AI chatbots are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democratic processes just over a week before national elections.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a analysis released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner 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 stances of these parties, the study indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched across the continent for the showing of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to AI Operation
The AP 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.
