AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants 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 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 ex-EU commissioner 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 report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that did not necessarily align with their political views, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with numerous electors still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the PVV, meaning the party that comes second is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The authority 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.
