In parliamentary elections, parties compete for a limited, typically fixed number of seats. Most parliaments are assembled using apportionment methods that distribute the seats based on the parties' vote counts. Common apportionment methods include divisor sequence methods (like D'Hondt or Sainte-Laguë), the largest-remainder method, and first-past-the-post. In many countries, an electoral threshold is implemented to prevent very small parties from entering the parliament. Further, several countries have apportionment systems that incorporate multiple districts. We study how computationally hard it is to change the election outcome (i.e., to increase or limit the influence of a distinguished party) by convincing a limited number of voters to change their vote. We refer to these bribery-style attacks as \emph{strategic campaigns} and study the corresponding problems in terms of their computational (both classical and parameterized) complexity. We also run extensive experiments on real-world election data and study the effectiveness of optimal campaigns, in particular as opposed to using heuristic bribing strategies and with respect to the influence of the threshold and the influence of the number of districts. For apportionment elections with threshold, finally, we propose -- as an alternative to the standard top-choice mode -- the second-chance mode where voters of parties below the threshold receive a second chance to vote for another party, and we establish computational complexity results also in this setting.

In parliamentary elections, parties compete for a limited, typically fixed number of seats. We study the complexity of the following bribery-style problem: Given the distribution of votes among the parties, what is the smallest number of voters that need to be convinced to vote for our party, so that it gets a desired number of seats. We also run extensive experiments on real-world election data and measure the effectiveness of our method.