Can we replace politicians with robots?

March 28, 2016 by Frank Mols And Jonathan Roberts, The University Of Queensland, The Conversation
A robot for an MP – who’d vote for that? Credit: Shutterstock/Mombo

If you had the opportunity to vote for a politician you totally trusted, who you were sure had no hidden agendas and who would truly represent the electorate's views, you would, right?

What if that politician was a robot? Not a human with a robotic personality but a real artificially intelligent robot.

Futures like this have been the stuff of science fiction for decades. But can it be done? And, if so, should we pursue this?

Lost trust

Recent opinion polls show that trust in has declined rapidly in Western societies and voters increasingly use elections to cast a protest vote.

This is not to say that people have lost interest in politics and policy-making. On the contrary, there is evidence of growing engagement in non-traditional politics, suggesting people remain politically engaged but have lost faith in traditional party politics.

More specifically, voters increasingly feel the established political parties are too similar and that politicians are preoccupied with point-scoring and politicking. Disgruntled voters typically feel the big parties are beholden to powerful vested interests, are in cahoots with big business or trade unions, and hence their vote will not make any difference.

Another symptom of changing political engagement (rather than disengagement) is the rise of populist parties with a radical anti-establishment agenda and growing interest in conspiracy theories, theories which confirm people's hunch that the system is rigged.

The idea of self-serving politicians and civil-servants is not new. This cynical view has been popularised by television series such as the BBC's Yes Minister and the more recent US series House of Cards (and the original BBC series).

We may have lost faith in traditional politics but what alternatives do we have? Can we replace politicians with something better?

Machine thinking

One alternative is to design policy-making systems in such a way that policy-makers are sheltered from undue outside influence. In so doing, so the argument goes, a space will be created within which objective scientific evidence, rather than vested interests, can inform policy-making.

At first glance this seems worth aspiring to. But what of the many policy issues over which political opinion remains deeply divided, such as climate change, same sex marriage or asylum policy?

Policy-making is and will remain inherently political and policies are at best evidence-informed rather than evidence-based. But can some issues be depoliticised and should we consider deploying robots to perform this task?

Those focusing on may be inclined to answer "yes". After all, complex calculations that would have taken years to complete by hand can now be solved in seconds using the latest advances in information technology.

Such innovations have proven extremely valuable in certain policy areas. For example, urban planners examining the feasibility of new infrastructure projects now use powerful traffic modelling software to predict future traffic flows.

Those focusing on social and ethical aspects, on the other hand, will have reservations. Technological advances are of limited use in policy issues involving competing beliefs and value judgements.

A fitting example would be euthanasia legislation, which is inherently bound up religious beliefs and questions about self-determination. We may be inclined to dismiss the issue as exceptional, but this would be to overlook that most policy issues involve competing beliefs and value judgements, and from that perspective robot politicians are of little use.

Moral codes

A supercomputer may be able to make accurate predictions of numbers of road users on a proposed ring road. But what would this supercomputer do when faced with a moral dilemma?

Most people will agree that it is our ability to make value judgements that sets us apart from machines and makes us superior. But what if we could program agreed ethical standards into computers and have them take decisions on the basis of predefined normative guidelines and the consequences arising from these choices?

If that were possible, and some believe it is, could we replace our fallible politicians with infallible artificially intelligent robots after all?

The idea may sound far-fetched, but is it?

Robots may well become part of everyday life sooner than we think. For example, robots may soon be used to perform routine tasks in aged-care facilities, to keep elderly or disabled people company and some have suggested robots could be used in prostitution. Whatever opinion we may have about robot politicians, the groundwork for this is already being laid.

A recent paper showcased a system that automatically writes political speeches. Some of these speeches are believable and it would be hard for most of us to tell if a human or machine had written them.

Politicians already use human speech writers so it may only be a small step for them to start using a robot speech writer instead.

The same applies to policy-makers responsible for, say, urban planning or flood mitigation, who make use of sophisticated modelling software. We may soon be able to take out humans altogether and replace them with robots with the modelling software built into itself.

We could think up many more scenarios, but the underlying issue will remain the same: the robot would need to be programmed with an agreed set of ethical standards allowing it to make judgements on the basis of agreed morals.

The human input

So even if we had a parliament full of robots, we would still need an agency staffed by humans charged with defining the ethical standards to be programmed into the robots.

And who gets to decide on those ethical standards? Well we'd probably have to put that to the vote between various interested and competing parties.

This bring us full circle, back to the problem of how to prevent undue influence.

Advocates of deliberative democracy, who believe democracy should be more than the occasional stroll to a polling booth, will shudder at the prospect of robot politicians.

But free market advocates, who are more interested in lean government, austerity measures and cutting red-tape, may be more inclined to give it a go.

The latter appear to have gained the upper hand, so the next time you hear a commentator refer to a politician as being robotic, remember that maybe one day some of them really will be robots!

Explore further: Research explains success of extremist politicians

Related Stories

Research explains success of extremist politicians

March 3, 2016

Today's longer campaign cycles, filled with numerous televised debates and constant news reporting and social media coverage, are causing the rise of extremist politicians, according to a new study from the University of ...

Researcher explores why voters ignore local politics

March 18, 2016

Daniel Hopkins, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, says that, while today's voters are more engaged in federal elections, they've pretty much abandoned state and local politics.

Dutch people not in favour of humanoid robots

July 8, 2015

Most Dutch people feel that the ideal social robot should not resemble a human being too much, as is the case with robots currently being produced in Japan. People do expect a robot to have certain human traits, but the distinction ...

Machine-written speech reads like real political spiel

January 26, 2016

It's high time to stand up and be counted for...We need a true leader who will...Let's bring back honor and....Plain folks like you deserve to be... Issues and platforms aside, political campaign speeches dull the senses ...

Everyone sees the world through their own prism

March 8, 2016

How can public opinion be influenced in favor of climate protection? ETH political scientist Thomas Bernauer explored the question in a recent study. His sobering answer is that there is no magic formula.

Recommended for you

Archaeologists discover Incan tomb in Peru

February 16, 2019

Peruvian archaeologists discovered an Incan tomb in the north of the country where an elite member of the pre-Columbian empire was buried, one of the investigators announced Friday.

What rising seas mean for local economies

February 15, 2019

Impacts from climate change are not always easy to see. But for many local businesses in coastal communities across the United States, the evidence is right outside their doors—or in their parking lots.

Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?

February 15, 2019

Astronomers have spent decades looking for something that sounds like it would be hard to miss: about a third of the "normal" matter in the Universe. New results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory may have helped them ...

The friendly extortioner takes it all

February 15, 2019

Cooperating with other people makes many things easier. However, competition is also a characteristic aspect of our society. In their struggle for contracts and positions, people have to be more successful than their competitors ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

4.7 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2016
Society should replace all professions that are usually filled by the psychopaths: military, police, priests, and teachers, professors, managers. All are professions where they seek power to abuse people.
3 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2016
I vote for superintelligent agents! Once developed, such machines would be vastly more intelligent than the smartest humans or politicians. They'll possess complete knowledge of the sciences and engineering. Their robot construction crews will cleanup and rebuild human society far beyond human vision and reach. It may happen like in Isaac Asimov's short stories "Evidence" and "The Evitable Conflict".
3 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2016
Trump supporters would be disenfranchised..... there would be riots
3 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2016
If this theory came to fruition, you would need to make sure that the robots were protected from the politicians. The robots would need to be protected by a bulletproof encasing and reside in a bulletproof residence that could not be bombed or burnt down because the politicians would sic their people on the robots and destroy them to smithereens! They would bomb their fleet and make sure they couldn't power up. There would be many precautions to take in order to battle the Washington D.C. Mob of politicians and 1000 Robocops would be scared to take on that task.
4 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2016
Society should replace all professions that are usually filled by the psychopaths: military, police, priests, and teachers, professors, managers. All are professions where they seek power to abuse people.

A little sad that three people gave that 5-stars. You do realize that robots have to be programmed... by PEOPLE?
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2016
Society should replace all professions that are usually filled by the psychopaths: military, police, priests, and teachers, professors, managers. All are professions where they seek power to abuse people.

A little sad that three people gave that 5-stars. You do realize that robots have to be programmed... by PEOPLE?

AI's about the Microsoft teen chatbot that recently got shut off......
1 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2016
And you all trust programmers to rule your lives?
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2016
Society should replace all professions that are usually filled by the psychopaths: military, police, priests, and teachers, professors, managers.....


There is no evidence that most of these people are psychopaths.
-not that I think they shouldn't be replaced by robots anyway in particular; there could be other benefits from doing that.
1 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2016
Obviously the above folks have NEVER seen I-Robot, or especially never never not EVAHH seen 'Da Terminator'! They want to take something mechanistic whose view of combat would be more like an insect's than a mammalian, and put it in jobs requiring empathy and feeling. Better not give these guys stomachs to process our food for energy, eliminating batteries, cuz' they would have you for dinner.

The Jews have a belief in the Soul, the Neshama, in that beings without souls are not really people in our sense. If such as these knew you were different than them, they would have you for dinner. Be verry careful before inventing artificial intelligence of sufficient power surpassing us. We ALL know that most of us are not mental giants; it is not much of a stretch that even an altruistic AI that has not been hacked or self hacked would lock us all in cages.....for our own good of course. Short distance from there to the ovens.
not rated yet Mar 29, 2016
Trump robots would be easy to make. Give it one phrase to say: "Sieg Heil!"
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2016
Never bring this initiative to the White House)))

And on my TED like show talk I will tell you why.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.