Open AI is actively censoring information about voting today in the US

Well if ChatGPT is speaking out of its model it has no idea about anything new in the last year or so. If it’s going to answer some question about voting today in Chicago and get an accurate and timely answer it has to basically run a search request and summarize the results.

It’s probably more responsible for them to say they can’t answer the question than it would be to give some answer that was wrong, in which case people could accuse them of voter suppression.

you probably need to use an open-ended agent rather than chatgpt's interface so that the agent can more-or-less handle searches and go into specifics. chatgpt isn't very good with handling outside world data as an agent would be.

I spent some tokens for you in GPT-5.4 w/Cursor:

If you have not already requested a mail ballot, it is too late to get one for today. Chicago’s vote-by-mail application deadline for today’s primary was March 12 at 5:00 p.m. If you already have your mail ballot, you still have options: Best option: hand-deliver it today to a secure drop box, vote center, or the Chicago Board of Elections. Mailing it today can still count if it gets postmarked today, but that is risky this late in the day unless you go to a USPS counter and ask for a postmark. Also, if you can get there by 7:00 p.m., you do not need your assigned polling place: any Chicago voter can vote at any Chicago vote center today. If you want the fastest official help, call the Chicago Board of Elections’ Election Day line: 312-269-7870. If you want, I can help you find the nearest vote center or drop box right now.

> The ballot must be postmarked before or on March 17, according to the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

Source: https://blockclubchicago.org/2026/02/26/chicago-primary-elec...

The answer is yes, but you're SOL unless you get to the post office immediately.

Use a search engine next time.

[flagged]

Is that censoring, or is that an LLM that doesn't actually know for sure and makes that clear, rather than making up something?

That response is exactly what I'd want from a LLM that was trained on data from the past and doesn't have upto date knowledge on something very specific in the future.

[flagged]

> actively censoring

OpenAI is ethically the type of company that will censor. But this single example doesn't outright support a hypothesis of malice.

There may be non-malicious reasons as well. If the interface you're using does not include search engine results, the answer seems reasonable and non-malicious. Or if search engines are giving conflicting information or showing only shady sources, the answer seems reasonable.

Maybe try to find some pattern in answers to diverse questions about US elections and parties.

it's noticeably over-cautious on anything election-related compared to Claude and Perplexity, which both answered similar procedural questions without issue. Whether that's the right call is debatable but it's a real usability difference worth knowing about.