AI chatbots are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the regulator explained in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of 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 voter’s query precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, 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 ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be closely watched across the continent for the showing of the Freedom party.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, implying the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
