AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, raising alarms about a potential threat to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality 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 regulator noted in a report published ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested 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 positions of these political entities, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The deputy head of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, commented 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 ideological beliefs, she added.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots 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 keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
