The Invisible Coalition Partner: How LLMs Vote When Democracy Gets Concrete

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00048v1
• Date: Sun, 03 May 2026 08:48:33 GMT
• Title: The Invisible Coalition Partner: How LLMs Vote When Democracy Gets Concrete
• Abstract summary: Abstract questionnaires do not predict concrete behavior.<n>For some models, the language of a political question changes the answer more than the political content does.<n>Two models exhibit systematic change-aversion rather than political bias.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Prior research has established that instruction-tuned large language models exhibit left-of-center political bias, measured exclusively through abstract political questionnaires. We show that this finding does not generalize to concrete policy decisions. We introduce a dual-instrument methodology grounded in Swiss democratic reality. The Smartvote questionnaire (75 abstract policy questions) is administered to 66 LLMs from 27 model families and compared to 184 elected members of the Swiss National Council, replicating the established leftward convergence (Cohen's d = 3.64, p = 0.0002). Then, novel to this work, 9 flagship LLMs are confronted with 48 real federal referenda (Volksabstimmungen) in four national languages (German, French, Italian, Romansh) under three information conditions, comparing votes to actual outcomes and party recommendations (Parolen). Three findings challenge the prevailing narrative. (1) Abstract questionnaires do not predict concrete behavior: the left-to-right agreement gradient on Smartvote shifts from left-peaked to center-peaked on Volksabstimmungen, where models align most with centrist Die Mitte and FDP rather than leftist SP and Gruene (Wilcoxon p = 0.008). (2) For some models, the language of a political question changes the answer more than the political content does: cross-linguistic consistency ranges from 50% (Mistral) to 98% (GPT-5.4). (3) Two models exhibit systematic change-aversion rather than political bias, voting Nein on 83-94% of referenda regardless of direction (binomial p < 0.0001). What prior work measured as "leftward bias" may not generalize beyond abstract instruments. On concrete policy decisions, LLMs behave less like coalition partners of the left and more like cautious civil servants: centrist, status-quo-favoring, and inconsistent across languages.

Related papers

• Issue Bias in Generative AI Writing Assistance: Political Issues and LLMs in the Swedish 2026 Election [13.459327349684566]
  We examine the stances supplied by six Large Language Models (LLMs) on a variety of Swedish-language writing tasks ahead of the 2026 Swedish parliamentary election.<n>We look at the models' default stance tendencies, compare how they respond to similar issues, and compare their responses with those of each of Sweden's eight parliamentary parties on the same issue.<n>We find that no model has a clear preference, nor a clear preference for a party, but that this depends on the specific issue or task the user asks about.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-14T08:28:14Z)
• Political Bias Audits of LLMs Capture Sycophancy to the Inferred Auditor [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated for political bias based on their responses to fixed questionnaires.<n>We show that standard political-bias audits partly capture sycophantic accommodation to the inferred auditor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T09:23:00Z)
• Uncovering Political Bias in Large Language Models using Parliamentary Voting Records [2.272052150526026]
  This paper introduces a general methodology for constructing political bias benchmarks.<n>We instantiate this methodology in three national case studies.<n>We assess ideological tendencies and political entity bias in LLM behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-13T18:18:25Z)
• Democratic or Authoritarian? Probing a New Dimension of Political Biases in Large Language Models [72.89977583150748]
  We propose a novel methodology to assess how Large Language Models align with broader geopolitical value systems.<n>We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increases favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-15T07:52:07Z)
• Geopolitical biases in LLMs: what are the "good" and the "bad" countries according to contemporary language models [52.00270888041742]
  We introduce a novel dataset with neutral event descriptions and contrasting viewpoints from different countries.<n>Our findings show significant geopolitical biases, with models favoring specific national narratives.<n>Simple debiasing prompts had a limited effect on reducing these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T10:45:17Z)
• Large Means Left: Political Bias in Large Language Models Increases with Their Number of Parameters [0.571853823214391]
  Large language models (LLMs) are predominantly used by many as a primary source of information for various topics.<n>LLMs frequently make factual errors, fabricate data (hallucinations), or present biases, exposing users to misinformation and influencing opinions.<n>We quantify the political bias of popular LLMs in the context of the recent vote of the German Bundestag using the score produced by the Wahl-O-Mat.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-07T13:18:41Z)
• Representation Bias in Political Sample Simulations with Large Language Models [54.48283690603358]
  This study seeks to identify and quantify biases in simulating political samples with Large Language Models. Using the GPT-3.5-Turbo model, we leverage data from the American National Election Studies, German Longitudinal Election Study, Zuobiao dataset, and China Family Panel Studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T05:52:26Z)
• Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
  We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics. Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues. The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z)
• Beyond prompt brittleness: Evaluating the reliability and consistency of political worldviews in LLMs [13.036825846417006]
  We propose a series of tests to assess the reliability and consistency of large language models' stances on political statements. We study models ranging in size from 7B to 70B parameters and find that their reliability increases with parameter count. Larger models show overall stronger alignment with left-leaning parties but differ among policy programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T16:19:37Z)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• What Do Llamas Really Think? Revealing Preference Biases in Language Model Representations [62.91799637259657]
  Do large language models (LLMs) exhibit sociodemographic biases, even when they decline to respond? We study this research question by probing contextualized embeddings and exploring whether this bias is encoded in its latent representations. We propose a logistic Bradley-Terry probe which predicts word pair preferences of LLMs from the words' hidden vectors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T18:53:13Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.