AI assistants are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democratic processes just over a week before national elections.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the study pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The AP 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.
