IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2601.07279.html

Coalition Tactics: Bribery and Control in Parliamentary Elections

Author

Listed:
  • Hodaya Barr
  • Eden Hartman
  • Yonatan Aumann
  • Sarit Kraus

Abstract

Strategic manipulation of elections is typically studied in the context of promoting individual candidates. In parliamentary elections, however, the focus shifts: voters may care more about the overall governing coalition than the individual parties' seat counts. This paper studies this new problem: manipulating parliamentary elections with the goal of promoting the collective seat count of a coalition of parties. We focus on proportional representation elections, and consider two variants of the problem; one in which the sole goal is to maximize the total number of seats held by the desired coalition, and the other with a dual objective of both promoting the coalition and promoting the relative power of some favorite party within the coalition. We examine two types of strategic manipulations: \emph{bribery}, which allows modifying voters' preferences, and \emph{control}, which allows changing the sets of voters and parties. We consider multiple bribery types, presenting polynomial-time algorithms for some, while proving NP-hardness for others. For control, we provide polynomial-time algorithms for control by adding and deleting voters. In contrast, control by adding and deleting parties, we show, is either impossible (i.e., the problem is immune to control) or computationally hard, in particular, W[1]-hard when parameterized by the number of parties that can be added or deleted.

Suggested Citation

  • Hodaya Barr & Eden Hartman & Yonatan Aumann & Sarit Kraus, 2026. "Coalition Tactics: Bribery and Control in Parliamentary Elections," Papers 2601.07279, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2601.07279
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.07279
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jarosław Flis & Wojciech Słomczyński & Dariusz Stolicki, 2020. "Pot and ladle: a formula for estimating the distribution of seats under the Jefferson–D’Hondt method," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 182(1), pages 201-227, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sanjay Bhattacherjee & Palash Sarkar, 2025. "On Using Proportional Representation Methods as Alternatives to Pro-rata Based Order Matching Algorithms in Stock Exchanges," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 65(1), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Junichiro Wada & Yuta Kamahara, 2024. "A unified approach to measuring unequal representation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 201(1), pages 287-308, October.
    3. Andreas Darmann & Christian Klamler, 2023. "Does the rule matter? A comparison of preference elicitation methods and voting rules based on data from an Austrian regional parliamentary election in 2019," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 63-87, October.
    4. Sanjay Bhattacherjee & Palash Sarkar, 2023. "On Using Proportional Representation Methods as Alternatives to Pro-Rata Based Order Matching Algorithms in Stock Exchanges," Papers 2303.09652, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2601.07279. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.