AI assistants are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the AP “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 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, 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 added.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed across the continent for the performance of the PVV.
The far-right party of Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the party that comes second is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
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.
