AI chatbots are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots 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 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the positions of these parties, the study pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, 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 added.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, 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 provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to AI Operation
The AP stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.