The Theory of Political Coalitions¶
Riker, W. (1962). The Theory of Political Coalitions.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Pirate game
- Game-theory pedagogy — the home turf: the canonical worked example for teaching subgame-perfect equilibrium, backward induction, and the counterintuitive distributive outcomes of sequential bargaining-with-survival. Corporate-control modelling — stylised models of board votes, proxy contests, and coalition formation that read swing-voter power off continuation values and the minimum winning coalition (Riker's minimum-winning-coalition theory)
This sourceRiker's size principle, which holds that rational players form coalitions just large enough to win and no larger; the book addresses political coalitions, not corporate boards.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- Game-theory pedagogy — the home turf: the canonical worked example for teaching subgame-perfect equilibrium, backward induction, and the counterintuitive distributive outcomes of sequential bargaining-with-survival. Corporate-control modelling — stylised models of board votes, proxy contests, and coalition formation that read swing-voter power off continuation values and the minimum winning coalition (Riker's minimum-winning-coalition theory)
Mechanisms¶
- Coalition Position Shift
- Its failure mode is the coalition that is larger than it needs to be: Riker's size principle holds that rational coalitions tend toward the minimum winning coalition, because every extra member dilutes each member's share of the spoils.
This sourceDevelops the size principle that rational actors form minimum winning coalitions because surplus members reduce the divisible payoff available to each participant.
- Its failure mode is the coalition that is larger than it needs to be: Riker's size principle holds that rational coalitions tend toward the minimum winning coalition, because every extra member dilutes each member's share of the spoils.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:6d5fbf6cde5d · see in the full table