AI chatbots are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that might not correspond to their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone 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 difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
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 numerous electors still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the party that comes second is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The AP 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.
