AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, raising alarms about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the watchdog explained in a report published ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that might not correspond to their political views, she added.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
