🔗 Share this article

AI assistants have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.

Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations

The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the regulator explained in a report released ahead of the late October vote.

For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.

Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these parties, the study pointed out.

Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice

The vice-chair of the AP, the official 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 ideological beliefs, she added.

“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”

Voting Background and Political Landscape

Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed across the continent 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 appears to be narrowing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.

All major parties have rejected a coalition with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.

Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to Chatbot Functioning

The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the way AI chatbots operate.