AI assistants are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” 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 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 report released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the voter’s query precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that did not necessarily align with their political views, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The authority emphasised that the bots were not deliberately biased, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
