AI assistants have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, 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 Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the positions of these political entities, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, stated that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that did not necessarily align with their political views, she added.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar 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.”
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 performance 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 party that comes second is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to AI Operation
The AP stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
