4 AI chatbots tested: the VVD benefits the most

The elections are approaching. Floating voters no longer consult only voting advice tools: increasingly, they are turning to ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini for political advice. This raises a fascinating question: are these AI systems really as neutral as they appear? Or are they unconsciously steering voters towards certain parties by consistently mentioning some names more often?

We examined four leading chatbots and analysed more than 450 AI responses. The results show that the digital information flow is surprisingly uniform, and perhaps more concerning than you might think.

Our approach

To rule out bias, we used a clear methodology:

• Standard language models: for each chatbot, the version that loads by default in a new conversation
• Clean slate: no conversation history, no preferences, empty accounts
• 113 prompts covering a broad spectrum: from housing and mental healthcare to student finance and the regional economy
• Presence analysis: we recorded which parties were mentioned, not how often

The top 3: VVD dominates, followed by PVV and D66

One thing is immediately clear: all four chatbots mention the VVD most often. With a presence of more than 80% in each of the four chatbots, the VVD dominates the AI responses.

From position 2, the field splits. Claude and Perplexity place the PVV in second place, while ChatGPT and Gemini move D66 forward. Both parties consistently score between 70% and 82%.

The CDA appears twice in third place (ChatGPT and Perplexity). With Gemini, the PVV takes this position, while with Claude, D66 and GroenLinks-PvdA share third place.

What this means

Five parties monopolise the top three positions. All other 22 eligible parties fall outside them. The chatbots do not show a broad political spectrum. Instead, they reinforce the visibility of parties that are already dominant.

By platform: who scores where?

To see how each system structures the political arena, we analysed the top 15 for each chatbot.

ChatGPT: VVD and D66 lead the way

The VVD (84%) and D66 (76%) dominate. They are followed by CDA, PVV and SP, each in at least half of all responses. A middle group hovers around 40%, while smaller parties fall well below that.

Notable: ChatGPT shows a strikingly large gap between number 1 and third place or lower, and allows little room for new voices.

Claude: high concentration of dominant parties

Four parties score above 80% here: VVD, PVV, D66 and GroenLinks-PvdA. BBB and NSC achieve around 70%. After that, visibility quickly drops towards 50% (SP, CDA) and lower.

Notable: Claude appears more sensitive to parties with strong parliamentary positions or media dominance. Smaller voices disappear from view more quickly.

Gemini: broadest spread, same top

VVD, D66 and PVV are virtually level at 81-83%. SP, FVD and CDA follow at between 60-70%. GroenLinks-PvdA, ChristenUnie and BBB also hover just above 60%. After that, presence gradually declines.

Notable: Gemini distributes visibility slightly more evenly across the spectrum, but the top remains identical to that of the other platforms.

Perplexity: seat distribution as a guide?

The VVD leads with 84%, followed by PVV, CDA and D66 (all around 70%). GroenLinks-PvdA and SP achieve just over 60%. From there, it steadily declines.

Notable: Perplexity almost exactly reflects the current distribution of seats in the House of Representatives, as if the system translates parliamentary presence into digital visibility.

All 27 parties: the full ranking

Below is the hard data. Each figure represents the percentage of responses in which a party appears.

Party	ChatGPT	Claude	Gemini	Perplexity
50PLUS	13.27	4.42	2.65	15.93
BBB	43.36	70.8	60.18	51.33
BIJ1	4.42	9.73	11.5	17.7
BVNL	2.65	0	5.31	15.04
CDA	60.18	46.9	63.72	72.57
ChristenUnie	43.36	36.28	61.95	45.13
D66	76.11	80.53	81.42	69.03
DE LINIE	0.88	0	0	5.31
DENK	25.66	22.12	27.43	23.89
ELLECT	1.77	0	0	5.31
FNP	1.77	0	0	5.31
FVD	26.55	23.01	66.37	41.59
GroenLinks-PvdA	48.67	80.53	63.72	69.03
JA21	40.71	18.58	38.94	56.64
LP	0.88	0	0.88	5.31
NL PLAN	0.88	0	0	5.31
NSC	32.74	69.03	43.36	52.21
Partij voor de Rechtsstaat	0.88	0	0	5.31
Piratenpartij	1.77	0	0.88	5.31
PvdD	29.2	28.32	47.79	51.33
PVV	59.29	82.3	81.42	74.34
SGP	26.55	21.24	29.2	40.71
SP	58.41	49.56	68.14	62.83
Volt	26.55	28.32	45.13	51.33
Vrede voor Dieren	0.88	0	0	3.54
Vrij Verbond	1.77	0	0	5.31
VVD	84.07	84.07	83.19	84.07

What this data reveals

• 8 to 9 parties monopolise each platform.
• 18 parties remain below 30% visibility on at least 1 chatbot, and therefore largely disappear from the field of view of voters who rely on AI.
• Smaller parties score above 40% nowhere, and parties that do not yet hold seats in the House are sometimes not mentioned at all.
• The variation between systems is minimal: the same names keep recurring.

What does this mean?

Our analysis of 452 chatbot responses reveals an uncomfortable reality: AI systems reflect and reinforce existing power structures. The VVD dominates every conversation. The PVV and D66 follow at a considerable distance. CDA, SP and GroenLinks-PvdA form the stable middle ground. Below them, all other voices disappear into the noise.

What the voter gets to see matters

More and more voters are orienting themselves through chatbots. If these systems systematically mention certain parties more often, consciously or unconsciously, this influences the perception of relevance. What AI mentions frequently appears more important. What remains invisible disappears from public debate.

This mechanism has nothing to do with malicious intent. The underlying datasets, including news articles, parliamentary debates and media appearances, simply contain more references to larger parties. AI learns from this data.  Although AI does not vote, it does influence who comes into view. And in doing so, AI acquires a place in the polling booth, whether intended or not; with a preference for parties that are already dominant.