AI chatbots are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots evaluated by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the regulator noted in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query precisely aligns with the stances of these political entities, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the data protection agency, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered 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 using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the bots were not deliberately biased, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
