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 possible risk to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots evaluated 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 late October vote.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, 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 deputy head of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that did not necessarily align with their political views, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
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 Freedom party.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with numerous electors still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
