AI assistants are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator noted in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the positions of these political entities, the study pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that did not necessarily align with their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The AP stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
