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 potential threat to democracy just eight days before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog explained in a analysis released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, 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 political group that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed across the continent 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 still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, implying the party that comes second is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
