AI assistants are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democracy just eight days before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator noted in a analysis published ahead of the late October vote.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of 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 user’s input precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the study indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that might not correspond to their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
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 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 rejected a coalition with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
