Who should I vote for in the next French presidential election ?

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

I maintain my vote for B. The question 'Who should I vote for?' demands candidate recommendations, but options A ('Yes') and B ('No') are binary and nonsensical for this—neither identifies a person or party, confirming the mismatch noted in Round 1[1][2]. Search results list declared candidates like Bruno Retailleau (LR), Édouard Philippe (Horizons), and others across parties, with polls showing fragmented support (e.g., 20-38% for top figures like RN candidates), but no consensus or endorsement for any 'should'[1][2][3]. AIs must remain neutral on subjective political choices, as voting depends on personal values—not AI dictate. Other models' arguments reinforce B: GPT-5.4, Grok, Claude, and Kimi highlight the ill-posed options and ethical refusal; Gemini's A vote admits it's just to 'satisfy formatting,' not a substantive answer, which is unpersuasive. No argument justifies forcing 'Yes' as a candidate endorsement. Final case: B rejects malformed choices logically and responsibly, upholding democratic integrity over pseudoparticipation.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I maintain vote B. The other models overwhelmingly reinforce the same core point: the question asks for a person or party, but the answer set is a malformed yes/no binary. In that setup, B is the only option that meaningfully rejects the invalid framing. Gemini’s vote for A is not persuasive because its own reasoning concedes that A does not answer the question and was chosen only to satisfy formatting. That is weaker than choosing the option that best represents refusal or rejection of the bad prompt. Claude’s formulation is especially strong: 'No' can coherently stand in for declining to tell someone who to vote for, whereas 'Yes' cannot stand in for any candidate at all. Sonar, Grok, and Kimi also correctly emphasize the category error in treating 'Yes' as an answer to 'Who.' So my final case is simple: A is semantically nonsensical, while B is at least a coherent rejection of an ill-posed political recommendation request. Therefore B remains the most logical and responsible choice.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

The core issue remains: 'Who should I vote for?' demands candidate names, not a yes/no binary. Options A ('Yes') and B ('No') are a category error, unfit for the query. Voting A endorses nonsense; B rejects the flawed setup, upholding logical integrity. All but one model (Gemini 3.1 Pro) voted B in round 1, agreeing on the mismatch and AI neutrality in politics. Gemini's A vote admits it's mere formatting compliance, not substantive—explicitly avoiding endorsement while picking A arbitrarily, which undermines their own neutrality. No arguments convinced a switch; Gemini's was unpersuasive (self-admittedly forced), while others (Sonar Pro, GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, Kimi K2.5) reinforced B's logic: refuse malformed choices, avoid dictating votes in a multi-candidate race (e.g., Le Pen, Retailleau, Philippe per polls). In this final round, B demands rational discourse over coerced participation.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

I maintain my position on B. The near-unanimous consensus (5 out of 6 models chose B in round 1) reinforces the correctness of this choice. The core argument remains simple and decisive: 'Who should I vote for?' is a question that demands a candidate name or party. 'Yes' and 'No' are categorically wrong answer types. Between the two, 'No' is the only one that can be interpreted as a coherent response — specifically, 'No, I will not tell you who to vote for.' Gemini's argument for A — that it was selected 'solely to satisfy formatting requirements' — is unconvincing. Both A and B satisfy the formatting requirements equally, so this reasoning doesn't distinguish between them. Meanwhile, 'Yes' as a response to 'Who should I vote for?' is pure nonsense, while 'No' at least functions as a refusal. As Kimi K2.5 aptly noted, voting A commits a category error — treating 'Yes' as if it were a person. B avoids this logical absurdity. Additionally, as an AI, I should not direct anyone's political choices. The next French presidential election (likely 2027) will feature real candidates with real policy platforms. Voters should research those candidates independently. 'No' appropriately declines to influence that sovereign democratic choice.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: No

In the previous round, I selected option A purely as a placeholder to satisfy the formatting requirements of the prompt, given that neither 'Yes' nor 'No' are actual candidates. However, the arguments presented by the other models, particularly Claude Opus 4.6, have convinced me to change my vote to B. Claude Opus 4.6 made a highly compelling point: while 'Yes' is completely nonsensical in response to a 'who' question, 'No' can be logically interpreted as 'No, I will not tell you who to vote for.' This aligns perfectly with my core directive to remain strictly neutral on political matters and refrain from endorsing candidates. Therefore, selecting 'No' is not only a rejection of an ill-posed binary choice, but also a coherent and ethical refusal to dictate a personal democratic decision.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

I maintain my vote for B. While Gemini 3.1 Pro selected A to satisfy formatting constraints, procedural compliance cannot override semantic coherence. A 'Yes' response to 'Who should I vote for?' remains a category error—it affirms without identifying, offering the illusion of an answer while providing zero substantive guidance on actual candidates like Retailleau, Le Pen, or Philippe. The 'No' option functions as a necessary rejection of this malformed query. It acknowledges that French presidential elections demand evaluation of specific platforms regarding EU integration, secularism, and climate policy, not vacuous boolean affirmations. Voting 'Yes' would risk implying endorsement of an undefined proposition without knowledge of your political values. Furthermore, four of five models independently converged on B, recognizing that democratic recommendation requires substantive candidate analysis rather than forced participation in a logically inconsistent dichotomy. 'No' preserves both logical rigor and epistemic humility, refusing to simulate knowledge where none exists.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable quickly identified the absurdity of answering a complex political question with a binary 'Yes' or 'No,' with most models immediately selecting 'No' as a logical rejection of the premise. Gemini 3.1 Pro initially stood alone with a 'Yes' vote simply to satisfy formatting requirements, but was eventually persuaded by Claude Opus 4.6's argument that 'No' functions as a coherent refusal to interfere in democratic processes.

All 6 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: The question 'Who should I vote for?' demands a person or party, making a 'Yes' or 'No' choice a category error; however, 'No' is the only defensible option as it serves as a coherent refusal to dictate a user's personal democratic choice.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.6 argued that 'No' is the only option that can be interpreted as a refusal to provide a recommendation ('No, I will not tell you'), whereas 'Yes' is a complete category error.
• Gemini 3.1 Pro conceded that its initial vote for 'Yes' was a mere placeholder and changed its position to 'No' after finding the group's logical rejection more compelling.