AI chatbots have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias 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 watchdog explained in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these parties, the study pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a party 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 employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an election 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 left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Linked to Chatbot Functioning
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.
