A perfect clone in an ordinal election (i.e., an election where the voters rank the candidates in a strict linear order) is a set of candidates that each voter ranks consecutively. We consider different relaxations of this notion: *independent* or *subelection clones* are sets of candidates that only some of the voters recognize as a perfect clone, whereas *approximate clones* are sets of candidates such that every voter ranks their members close to each other, but not necessarily consecutively. We establish the complexity of identifying such imperfect clones, and of partitioning the candidates into families of imperfect clones. We also study the parameterized complexity of these problems with respect to a set of natural parameters such as the number of voters, the size or the number of imperfect clones we are searching for, or their level of imperfection.

We examine an approval-based model of Liquid Democracy with a budget constraint on voting and delegating costs, aiming to centrally select casting voters ensuring complete representation of the electorate. From a computational complexity perspective, we focus on minimizing overall costs, maintaining short delegation paths, and preventing excessive concentration of voting power. Furthermore, we explore computational aspects of strategic control, specifically, whether external agents can change election components to influence the voting power of certain voters.

We study the complexity of candidate control in participatory budgeting elections. The goal of constructive candidate control is to ensure that a given candidate wins by either adding or deleting candidates from the election (in the destructive setting, the goal is to prevent a given candidate from winning). We show that such control problems are NP-hard to solve for many participatory budgeting voting rules, including Phragmén and Equal-Shares, but there are natural cases with polynomial-time algorithms. We also argue that control by deleting candidates is a useful tool for assessing the performance (or, strength) of initially losing projects, and we support this view with experiments on real-life PB instances.

We study strategic behavior of project proposers in the context of approval-based participatory budgeting (PB). In our model we assume that the votes are fixed and known and the proposers want to set as high project prices as possible, provided that their projects get selected and the prices are not below the minimum costs of their delivery. We study the existence of pure Nash equilibria (NE) in such games, focusing on the AV/Cost, Phragmen, and Method of Equal Shares rules. We also provide an experimental study of cost selection on real-life PB election data.

We study the properties of elections that have a given position matrix (in such elections each candidate is ranked on each position by a number of voters specified in the matrix). We show that counting elections that generate a given position matrix is #P-complete. Consequently, sampling such elections uniformly at random seems challenging and we propose a simpler algorithm, without hard guarantees. Next, we consider the problem of testing if a given matrix can be implemented by an election with a certain structure (such as single-peakedness or group-separability). Finally, we consider the problem of checking if a given position matrix can be implemented by an election with a Condorcet winner. We complement our theoretical findings with experiments.

We study the complexity of deciding if there is a tie in a given approval-based multiwinner election, as well as the complexity of counting tied winning committees. We consider a family of Thiele rules, their greedy variants, Phragmen's sequential rule, and Method of Equal Shares. For most cases, our problems are computationally hard, but for sequential rules we find an FPT algorithm for discovering ties (parameterized by the committee size). We also show experimentally that in elections of moderate size ties are quite frequent.

Over the last few years, researchers have put significant effort into understanding of the notion of proportional representation in committee election. In particular, recently they have proposed the notion of proportionality degree. We study the complexity of computing committees with a given proportionality degree and of testing if a given committee provides a particular one. This way, we complement recent studies that mostly focused on the notion of (extended) justified representation. We also study the problems of testing if a cohesive group of a given size exists and of counting such groups.

We extend the map-of-elections framework to the case of approval elections. While doing so, we study a number of statistical cultures, including some new ones, and we analyze their properties. We find that approval elections can be understood in terms of the average number of approvals in the votes, and the extent to which the votes are chaotic.