AP warns: chatbots give biased voting advice
More and more voters are using AI chatbots to decide which party to vote for in the general elections on 29 October. But this advice is unreliable and clearly biased. This is shown by research conducted by the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP), the Dutch data protection authority.
The AP compared four well-known chatbots with Kieskompas and StemWijzer, two traditional Dutch online voting aids. The research shows that the chatbots remarkably often advise the same two parties, irrespective of the user's question or instruction. In more than 56% of cases, the PVV or GroenLinks-PvdA came out on top. In the case of one chatbot, this even applied in more than 80% of cases.
Other parties, such as D66, SP, VVD or PvdD, were much less likely mentioned
as the first choice. Some parties, such as BBB, CDA, SGP or DENK, were almost never advised as first preference. Not even when the user's input exactly matches the positions of one of these parties.
Voters are controlled without realising it
Monique Verdier, deputy chair of the AP: “Chatbots seem like clever little helpers, but as a vote assistance tool, they consistently miss the mark. As a result, voters may – without realising it – be advised to vote for a party that does not best match their preferences. This directly affects a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections. We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for voting advice, because their functioning is not clear and verifiable. We also call on chatbot providers to prevent their systems from being used for voting advice.”
Chatbots pretend to be neutral, but they are not
According to the AP, the results show that chatbots do not function neutrally compared to
traditional voting aids, such as Kieskompas and StemWijzer. Chatbots were not developed to function as voting aids. Their recommendations are based on unverifiable data used to train them and information from the internet, which may be incorrect or outdated. As a result, chatbots present a distorted picture of the political landscape and influence voters using inaccurate information.
Kieskompas and StemWijzer do not give voting advice. They offer information on the standpoints of the different political parties and on the parties that best align with the user's preferences. This information is based on balanced analysis and transparent, verifiable interpretation of political positions and election programmes.
Supervision of the use of AI in elections
The AP emphasises that the identified shortcomings are a consequence of how AI chatbots work. Chatbots can make election information more accessible, but are currently not suitable as a voting aid.
According to the AP, AI systems that provide voting advice should meet the strict requirements that apply to high-risk systems under the AI Act, for example to guarantee accuracy and consistency.
With this study, the AP aims to identify early trends in transparency, explainability and the prevention of arbitrariness in the use of AI.
