AI assistants are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, raising alarms about a potential threat to democratic processes just over a week before the country’s general election.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog explained in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed 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 precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented 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 ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution 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 October 29 in an electoral contest that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the way AI chatbots operate.
