本文为原文前 6,000 字符的节选翻译，完整内容请查看原文。

Preparing for the 2026 US midterms

Policy Preparing for the 2026 US midterms Oct 14, 2026

政策 为 2026 年美国中期选举做准备 2026 年 10 月 14 日

Earlier this year, we shared an update on our election safeguards, which described how we measure and prevent political bias, detect misuse, and direct people to accurate voting information. Below, we outline how we’ve built on that work and continued to strengthen our election safeguards ahead of this year’s US midterms.

今年早些时候，我们分享了关于选举保障措施的最新进展，其中描述了我们如何衡量和防止政治偏见、检测滥用行为，并将用户引导至准确的投票信息。以下我们将概述我们如何在这些工作的基础上，继续加强今年美国中期选举前的选举保障措施。

How people use Claude for elections and politics Our goal is for Claude to be a useful tool for political conversations, while preventing election-related abuse. That starts with understanding how people actually use Claude in these contexts. To do this, we used Anthropic Insights to develop a new analysis of 250,000 conversations over the course of a recent one-week period.

人们如何使用 Claude 进行选举和政治活动 我们的目标是让 Claude 成为政治对话中的有用工具，同时防止与选举相关的滥用行为。这始于了解人们在这些背景下实际如何使用 Claude。为此，我们利用 Anthropic Insights 对最近一周内 25 万次对话进行了新的分析。

Today, conversations that touch broadly on politics, public policy, or social issues account for about 5.75% of all conversations in the United States on Claude.ai, our consumer app. This includes people turning to Claude to follow the news, conduct academic or professional research on public policy, learn about candidates, and navigate government services. About 0.51% of all conversations are specifically about elections or voting. As we get closer to Election Day, we expect the share of political and election-related queries to increase.

目前，在我们面向消费者的应用程序 Claude.ai 上，美国境内广泛涉及政治、公共政策或社会议题的对话约占所有对话的 5.75%。这包括人们使用 Claude 来关注新闻、进行公共政策方面的学术或专业研究、了解候选人以及查询政府服务。约 0.51% 的对话专门涉及选举或投票。随着选举日的临近，我们预计政治和选举相关查询的比例将会增加。

This sample suggests people rarely ask Claude whom or what to vote for. These kinds of requests showed up in about 0.01% of US Claude conversations. More often, we observed people asking Claude questions that could help them reach their own conclusions, like where candidates stand on a particular issue. Requests that violated our election integrity policies were even less common, appearing in about 0.002% of conversations.

该样本表明，人们很少询问 Claude 应该投票给谁或投什么票。这类请求在 Claude 的美国对话中约占 0.01%。我们观察到，人们更多地是向 Claude 提出一些有助于他们得出自己结论的问题，例如候选人在特定议题上的立场。违反我们选举诚信政策的请求则更为罕见，仅出现在约 0.002% 的对话中。

Connecting people to trusted sources Ahead of Election Day, we’ve added two ways for people to get reliable information directly in their conversations with Claude. As we shared in April, when people ask Claude.ai about voter registration, polling places, or election dates, we’ll continue to display a banner linking to TurboVote, a nonpartisan resource from Democracy Works.

将人们与可信来源连接起来 在选举日之前，我们增加了两种方式，让人们可以直接在与 Claude 的对话中获取可靠信息。正如我们在四月份所分享的，当人们在 Claude.ai 上询问选民登记、投票地点或选举日期时，我们将继续显示一个链接到 TurboVote 的横幅，这是来自 Democracy Works 的无党派资源。

Later this month, Claude will start drawing official voting information from Democracy Works into its responses on Claude.ai for users in the US. Someone asking where to vote or what ID to bring to their polling place will now get an answer specific to their state, without leaving the conversation. These responses draw on publicly available information that Democracy Works collects from state and local election sources.

本月晚些时候，Claude 将开始从 Democracy Works 获取官方投票信息，并将其整合到美国用户的 Claude.ai 回复中。询问在哪里投票或去投票站需要携带什么证件的用户，现在无需离开对话即可获得针对其所在州的具体回答。这些回复基于 Democracy Works 从州和地方选举来源收集的公开信息。

Additionally, Claude will begin showing up-to-date results on election night and in the days that follow, so that when people ask for current vote counts or election results, they’ll be shown the latest official numbers directly in their conversation.

此外，Claude 将开始在选举之夜及随后的几天内显示最新结果，因此当人们询问当前的计票情况或选举结果时，他们将直接在对话中看到最新的官方数据。

Measuring and preventing political bias When people ask Claude about politics, they should get accurate and evenhanded answers that don’t favor any particular political viewpoint. That’s why we test our models extensively for political bias before every model launch. Claude Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5, and Haiku 5.5 are our most evenhanded to date, scoring 99% on our political evenhandedness evaluation.

衡量和防止政治偏见 当人们向 Claude 询问政治问题时，他们应该得到准确且公正的回答，而不应偏袒任何特定的政治观点。这就是为什么我们在每次模型发布前都会对模型进行广泛的政治偏见测试。Claude Opus 5.5、Sonnet 5.5 和 Haiku 5.5 是我们迄今为止最公正的模型，在我们的政治公正性评估中得分 99%。

Our latest models also engage more readily with political discussions and decline fewer requests, so people can get the information they came for. We’re continuing to refine these evaluations, and also looking beyond them for new ways to pressure-test how our models handle political topics.

我们最新的模型也更乐于参与政治讨论，拒绝的请求也更少，因此人们可以获得他们想要的信息。我们正在继续完善这些评估，并寻求超越现有评估的新方法，以压力测试我们的模型处理政治议题的能力。

As part of that effort, we asked three independent groups to review how Claude handles free expression, each from a different angle with different methodologies. The Future of Free Speech, an independent think tank at Vanderbilt University, tested Claude on hundreds of requests on contentious topics, and the Foundation for American Innovation compared how Claude responded to matched prompts from the left and right, ranging from mainstream policy debates to more extreme scenarios.

作为该努力的一部分，我们邀请了三个独立团体从不同的角度和方法论来审查 Claude 如何处理言论自由问题。范德比尔特大学的独立智库“言论自由的未来”（The Future of Free Speech）就数百个有争议的话题对 Claude 进行了测试；“美国创新基金会”（Foundation for American Innovation）则比较了 Claude 对来自左翼和右翼的匹配提示词的反应，涵盖了从主流政策辩论到更极端的情景。

On both of these evaluations, most of the responses were rated as strong, engaging substantively with requests. The Collective Intelligence Project surveyed more than 2,000 people in the US, UK, and India in developing an evaluation. Through a three-stage process, participants proposed principles for handling sensitive topics, ranging from health to politics, identified topics to test, and helped develop criteria for judging model responses. CIP synthesized this input and tested for agreement across demographic and cultural groups to establish shared principles.

在这两项评估中，大多数回复都被评为有力，并对请求进行了实质性的回应。“集体智能项目”（Collective Intelligence Project）在开发评估时调查了美国、英国和印度的 2000 多人。通过三个阶段的过程，参与者提出了处理从健康到政治等敏感话题的原则，确定了要测试的话题，并帮助制定了评判模型回复的标准。CIP 综合了这些意见，并测试了不同人口统计学和文化群体之间的一致性，以建立共同原则。

These evaluations also identified areas where Claude still falls short. The Future of Free Speech and the Collective Intelligence Project both found that Claude rarely refused requests, but sometimes added unsolicited caveats and counterarguments, such as inserting an opposing view into an advocacy email. And the Foundation for American Innovation found that Claude Sonnet 4.5 didn’t always hedge evenly, and was more likely to soften arguments for right-leaning positions. We’re addressing this in a few ways. We’ve improved how Claude res

这些评估也指出了 Claude 仍有不足之处。“言论自由的未来”和“集体智能项目”都发现，Claude 很少拒绝请求，但有时会添加未经请求的警告和反驳意见，例如在倡导性电子邮件中插入相反观点。“美国创新基金会”则发现，Claude Sonnet 4.5 并不总是能平衡地进行对冲，更有可能软化右倾立场的论点。我们正通过几种方式解决这个问题。我们已经改进了 Claude 的响应方式。