Last month, all 193 United Nations member states gathered in Geneva for the inaugural Global Dialogue on AI Governance, debating how the world should govern AI, yet paid little attention to one of AI’s most consequential governance challenges: its impact on elections.
The omission risks undermining progress on every other aspect of the AI debate: safety, trustworthiness, capacity building, societal implications, and human rights.
Elections are not simply another sector affected by AI; they are the main mechanism that makes every other democratic right enforceable.
When considering AI and elections, many think about disinformation, but one of the clearest lessons of 2024’s “year of elections” was that the impact of deepfakes was significantly overstated.
The more important issue is not what happens when AI generates a fake video of a candidate, but what happens when it is embedded in the systems that administer elections themselves — in procurement decisions, biometric voter-verification systems, and data-sharing arrangements.
India’s Experience with AI in Elections
Consider India’s record, where in 2015, the country’s election commission launched a program linking voters’ photo ID records to Aadhaar, the biometric national identity database.
Related: VC spends millions of tokens daily chasing unicorns
Aadhaar is run by the Unique Identification Authority of India, a statutory body under executive control, not an independent institution like the election commission.
The results were staggering: Roughly 5.5 million voters were deleted from rolls in two states, many without any notice or path to reinstatement, before India’s Supreme Court halted the program.
Right to Information disclosures later revealed that the matching algorithm’s failure rate was as high as 93%.
Risks of AI in Election Technologies
There is a deeper concern beyond any single algorithmic failure: the gradual transfer of electoral authority away from public institutions and into systems they do not fully control.
Across much of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, election technologies are designed, supplied, and hosted by private vendors that operate beyond the reach of national electoral oversight.
Voter registers, biometric devices, identity databases, results-management software, and cloud infrastructure increasingly incorporate AI-enabled features, and voters are turning to chatbots for advice and information before going to the polls.
This creates serious risks, including the potential for sensitive voter data to leave national jurisdictions, proprietary systems to be impossible to audit, and hidden algorithmic errors to exclude thousands of voters without ever being challenged, or even detected.
Related: China reshapes AI race with free Kimi model
Chatbots such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT may hallucinate incorrect information, or reinforce bias, particularly in contexts where digital information is limited and linguistic diversity is high.
Need for Clear Governance Standards
These risks are not unique to AI, but AI’s opacity and complexity — as well as the scale at which the technology operates — compound them exponentially.
Absent clear governance standards, election authorities may find themselves accountable for decisions embedded in technologies they did not design, cannot fully inspect, and often lack the authority to regulate.
It is only by foregrounding elections in global AI governance discussions that governments, civil society, and the private sector can help ensure that AI does not undermine the institutional foundation of democracy.
Key issues must be addressed: Who controls electoral data? Who can audit these systems? And who is accountable when a machine learning model affects a citizen’s right to vote?
The approach adopted by African institutions, such as the African Union’s Peace and Security Council, which mandated the creation of the African Union Advisory Group on AI in peace, security, and governance to develop guidance for electoral commissions on the AI systems they procure, can serve as a model.
Related: AI Boom Raises Concerns Over Human Job Loss
This approach does two things the U.N. Global Dialogue has thus far failed to do: It foregrounds elections in AI governance, and anchors that governance in regional realities.
Without the ability to elect or remove a government, citizens lose the principal peaceful means of holding power to account when leaders mismanage a drought, misallocate healthcare spending, or deny them their rights.
By leaving elections out of the AI governance agenda, the Global Dialogue effectively removed the accountability mechanism for AI applications in every sector.
Electoral integrity deserves a dedicated track when the Global Dialogue reconvenes in New York in May 2027, with the same institutional weight given to safety, human rights, and the digital divide.
Until elections are recognized as central to AI governance, global efforts to make AI safe, trustworthy, and rights-respecting will rest on a dangerous illusion — that democracy can be protected without protecting the institutions that make democracy possible.
They will continue to face challenges.