AI chatbots are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a report published ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, 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.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the user’s input precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the report pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with numerous electors still undecided.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the party that comes second is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
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.
