AI Alignment for Digital Democracy: Fairer Voters Representation against LLM Biases

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic political biases in voter simulations, but their underlying mechanisms and cross-lingual generalizations remain poorly understood. We introduce Dynamo-K, a census-grounded simulation framework evaluating Korean-language LLM political behavior across four models on six Korean elections (2017-2025). Using this framework, we identify three systematic failure modes: (1) progressive bias in moderate agents, where explicit mitigation reduces Mean Absolute Error (MAE) by 5.2 times; (2) model-dependent third-party salience collapse, distinguishing between salience failure and decision bias; and (3) regional polarization collapse, where models bidirectionally under-predict historical party strongholds. To address these failures, we demonstrate that scenario reframing recovers 62% of 2017 MAE by restoring third-party visibility. Furthermore, we introduce a learned reweighting adapter that successfully calibrates opposing-valence models without relying on candidate names at train or test time. Validating our diagnostic framework, Dynamo-K accurately predicts 3/3 presidential winners - including a 2.1%p MAE on the highly contested 0.73%p-margin 2022 race - and correctly identifies the dominant party in a held-out local election. The pipeline is open-source and provides a scalable, cost-effective method for diagnosing LLM political behavior.

Large language models (LLMs) trained on large-scale internet corpora encode extensive statistical regularities about social identities, attitudes, and political behaviour. This paper introduces and evaluates a methodological framework that leverages these latent representations to reconstruct aggregate voting behaviour from individual-level sociodemographic profiles. We operationalize LLMs as implicit sociological models by conditioning them on demographic descriptions, eliciting probabilistic turnout and party preferences, and aggregating individual outputs via a soft voting procedure. Using the 2021 Czech parliamentary election as a validation case, we demonstrate that contemporary LLMs reproduce official election outcomes with low mean absolute error, recover known political bloc structures, and align with independently established sociodemographic gradients. The contribution of this work is methodological rather than predictive: we show how LLMs can be systematically interrogated as compressed representations of social reality, offering a novel exploratory instrument for computational social science while clearly delineating its epistemic and ethical limits.

As users increasingly turn to Large Language Models (LLMs) for information and advice on political matters, particularly during election periods, the political preferences expressed by these systems have become a matter of public interest. Prior research has shown that interactions with LLMs can influence users' political attitudes and choices, raising questions about how these models themselves evaluate political actors. In this paper, we investigate whether and how LLMs express preferences toward political parties and political leaders. We introduce a systematic and reproducible auditing framework in which multiple LLMs are prompted to evaluate parties and leaders across nine criteria. Rather than attempting to infer the models' "true" political beliefs, we focus on their observable behavior, examining consistency across evaluations, differences between models, refusal rates, and sensitivity to prompt formulation. We further investigate how these evaluations vary when models are instructed to adopt different personas. We demonstrate the framework through an Italian case study, providing a systematic analysis of LLM-generated political evaluations on italian parties and leaders.