AI chatbots have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, raising alarms about a potential threat to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the watchdog explained in a report published ahead of the late October vote.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the positions of these political entities, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the data protection agency, the official 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 party that did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be closely watched across the continent for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The AP emphasised that the bots were not deliberately biased, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
