AI assistants have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, raising alarms about a potential threat to democratic processes just over a week before the country’s general election.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the positions of these parties, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that might not correspond to their political views, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the showing of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Linked 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.
