AI assistants are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, raising alarms about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before the country’s general election.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these parties, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an election that will be closely watched across the continent for the performance of the Freedom party.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with numerous electors still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the party that comes second is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
The AP stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the way AI chatbots operate.
