AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the regulator noted in a analysis released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the positions of these parties, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that might not correspond to their political views, 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.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be closely watched around Europe for the showing of the PVV.
The far-right party 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 provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed 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.
