AI assistants are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots tested by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator noted in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the positions of these political entities, the study pointed out.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that did not necessarily align with their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“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 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 closely watched across the continent for the performance of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the Freedom party, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
The authority stressed that the bots were not deliberately biased, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
